> Users get personalized interfaces without custom code.
Personalized interfaces are bad. I don't want to configure anything, and I don't want anything automatically configured on my behalf. I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it.
Your UI should be clear and predictable. A chatbot should not be moving around the buttons. If I'm going to compare notes with my friend on how to use your software, all the buttons need to be in the same place. People hate UI redesigns for a reason: Once they've learned how to use your software, they don't want to re-learn. A product that constantly redesigns itself at the whims of an inscrutable chatbot which thinks it knows what you want is the worst of all possible products.
ALSO: Egregiously written article. I assume it's made by an LLM.
Yes and this is my biggest anxiety of future software and interfaces to come. You won't remember how you got there or did what because there are n permutations of getting there or doing that, except they're vaguely similar but not exactly the same thing. I too want predictable software (including UIs) that stays the same until I want to change/upgrade it myself as a user.
I think you are right in the 'current paradigm' of what software is at the moment, where users are using a fixed set of functionality in the way that the developer intended, but there is a new breed of software where the functionality set can't be defined in an exhaustive way.
Take Claude Code - after I've described my requirement it gives me a customised UI that asks me to make choices specific to what I have asked it to build (usually a series of dropdown lists of 3-4 options). How would a static UI do that in a way that was as seamless?
The example used in the article is a bit more specific but fair - if you want to calculate the financial implications of a house purchase in the 'old software paradigm' you probably have to start by learning excel and building a spreadsheet (or using a dodgy online calculator someone else built, which doesn't match your use case). The spreadsheet the average user writes might be a little simplified - are we positive that they included stamp duty and got the compounding interest right? Wouldn't it be great if Excel could just give you a perfectly personalised calculator, with toggle switches, without users needing to learn =P(1+(k/m))^(mn) but while still clearly showing how everything is calculated? Maybe Excel doesn't need to be a tool which is scary - it can be something everyone can use to help make better decisions regardless of skill level.
So yes, if you think of software only doing what it has done in the past, Gen UI does not make sense. If you think of software doing things it has never done before we need to think of new interaction modes (because hopefully we can do something better than just a text chat interface?).
Yeah, additionally imagine supporting something like that: "Yeah, I cannot reproduce your issue because things on my end look different". A nightmare for sure.
> I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it
Nothing "just works" for everyone. You are a product of your environment, people say apple interfaces/OSX are intuitive, I found them utterly unusable until I was forced to spend a lot of time to learn them.
Depending on which software you grew up using, you either find it intuitive or don't. If you found someone that has never used technology, no modern UI would be intuitive.
Personally, I hate it when software that I have to use daily is not configurable (and ideally extensible via programming). It's basically designed for the lowest common denominator for some group of users that product/design groups have decided is "intuitive".
> People hate UI redesigns for a reason...
I do agree here, stop changing things for the sake of changing things. When I owned some internal tools, I would go out of my way to not break user workflows. Even minor things, like tab-order, which I think most people don't think about, I'd have browser automation tests to make sure they remained consistent.
The case against complex UI hides the fact that nobody wants to take their time to learn a piece of software anymore. Attention spans are so short, if the system doesn't do all the thinking for you, why bother with it? We are just moving the human laziness through another layer of indirection. The fact never changed in the past 30 years: some domains are complicated and you need smart people on both ends who can bridge the gaps. The dream has always been the same with nocode, lowcode and whatever, it doesn't change this fundamental flaw.
Consider building your own blender software. If you know nothing about 3D you start off in your language and the LLM will happily produce UI for your level of understanding, which is limited. Over time you will reach an understanding that looks just like the software you were trying to replicate.
Currently the ecosystem around UI changes so much, because its always been a solved problem that people just keep reinventing to have... something to do I guess?
B2B is a lot more rewarding in this sense. When you've found your power-user any piece of feedback is useful. If it's good enough for them, then the rest typically follows.
This also keeps my motivation when developing UI, because I know someone else cares.
Businesses forgot about this and I ended up a job where I just do whatever my PM says.
> The case against complex UI hides the fact that nobody wants to take their time to learn a piece of software anymore. Attention spans are so short, if the system doesn't do all the thinking for you, why bother with it? We are just moving the human laziness through another layer of indirection. The fact never changed in the past 30 years: some domains are complicated and you need smart people on both ends who can bridge the gaps. The dream has always been the same with nocode, lowcode and whatever, it doesn't change this fundamental flaw.
This has nothing to do with laziness or attention span. 20 years ago you'd have maybe a dozen programs tops to juggle and they were much better designed, because they were made by people who actually use the software instead of some bored designer at FAANG sweatshop who operates on metrics. Now you have 3-5 chat clients, 20 different web UIs for everything on 3 different OSs, all with different shortcuts. And on top of that it CONSTANTLY changes (looking at you Android and material 3).
5 things deserve knowing in-depth: browser (not a specific website, but browser itself), text editor, Spreadsheet application, terminal and whatever else software you use to put a bread on your table.
For any VCs that seriously think I'll invest non-trivial amount of time into learning their unique™ software – you're delusional. Provide shortcuts that resemble browser/vim/emacs/vscode and don't waste yours and my time.
On the face of it, this seems like a terrible idea. Interesting, but terrible. I’ve spent 30 years encouraging simple, repeatable, user-focused UI’s where hierarchies are explicit, pages are referenceable, search results are real URLs and so on. Randomness is generally bad - humans expect X module or block or whatever to be in the same place from visit to visit, not adapting based on some complex algorithm that “learns”.
UX and UI takes work, and it’s mostly work getting back to simplicity - things like “think more like a user and less like your organisation” in terms of naming conventions and structures, or making sure that content works harder than navigation in orienting users. I don’t think there’s any sort of quick fix here, it’s hard to get it right.
There is a trade off with simplicity though - usually it requires being highly opinionated about which software features make the cut. Users or sales teams often want more features, but if you included every one the app would become a mess.
But there is a possible world where you can have both - every 'feature' your users would ever want without overwhelming complexity or steep learning curves, but with the possible downside/cost of reducing consistency.
I bristled at the title, article contents, and their spreadsheet example, but this does actually touch on a real paint point that I have had - how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software? By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
I do a lot of CAD. Every single keyboard shortcut I know was learned only because I needed to do something that was either *highly repetitive* or *highly frustrating*, leading me to dig into Google and find the fast way to do it.
However, everything that is only moderately repetitive/frustrating and below is still being done the simple way. And I've used these programs for years.
I have always dreamed of user interfaces having competent, contextual user tutorials that space out learning about advanced and useful features over the entire duration that you use. Video games do this process well, having long since replaced singular "tutorial sections" with a stepped gameplay mechanic rollout that gradually teaches people incredibly complex game mechanics over time.
A simple example to counter the auto-configuration interpretation most of the other commenters are thinking of. In a toolbar dropdown, highlight all the features I already know how to use regularly. When you detect me trying to learn a new feature, help me find it, highlight it in a "currently learning" color, and slowly change the highlight color to "learned" in proportion to my muscle memory.
> how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software?
On-the-job-training, honestly; like we've been doing for decades, restated as:
Employer-mandated required training in ${Product} competence: consisting of a "proper" guided introduction to the advanced and undiscovered features of a product combined with a proficiency examination where the end-user must demonstrate both understanding a feature, and actually using it.
(With the obvious caveat the you'll probably want to cut-off Internet access during the exam part to avoid people delegating their thinking to an LLM again; or mindlessly following someone else's instructions in-general)
My pet example is when ("normal") people are using MS Word when they don't understand how defined-styles work, and instead treat everything in Word as a very literal 1:1 WYSIWYG, so to "make a heading" they'll select a line of text, then manually set the font, size, and alignment (bonus points if they think Underlining text for emphasis is ever appropriate typography (it isn't)), and they probably think there's nothing more to learn. I'll bet that someone like that is never going to explore and understand the Styles system on their own volition (they're here to do a job, not to spontaneously decide to want to learn Word inside out, even on company time).
Separately, there are things like "onboarding popups" you see in web-applications thesedays, where users are prompted to learn about new and underused features, but I feel they're ineffective or user-hostile because those popups only appear when users are trying to use the software for something else, so they'll ignore or dismiss them, never to be seen again.
> By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
Unfortunately for our purposes, autism isn't transmissible.
Generative UI is incompatible with learning. It means every user sees something different, so you can't watch a tutorial or have a coworker show you what they do or have tech support send you a screenshot.
The solution could be search. It's not a House of Leaves.
I break out blender every six months or so in order to create a model for 3d printing. It needs to be precise and often has threads or other repetitive structures.
Every. Single. Time. I spend at least the first 3 hours relearning how to use all the tools again with Claude reminding me where modifiers are, and which modifier allows what. And which hotkey slices. Etc etc.
We’re working on something adjacent to this[0] by making fluid UIs for public (marketing landing content) front ends. AI allows even compiled code to be arbitrarily modified on the fly, and it’s only going to get easier to start with a “base” of content, functionality, and components - and compose the best outcome for a user.
the whole point of this is that the buttons keep moving so your fingers can't learn. When steve jobs said it, he thought about it first and was talking about something different
In theory this seems like a reasonable solution, but in practice, it really is impossible. Is the help documentation going to be generative too? Or can I only ask a chatbot?
Secondly, the concrete example is not generative UI, it’s just generated data getting put into a schema.
I think the hard part of design is that you must consider the trade off between a new user and a power user. Overwhelm against progressive disclosure. It’s an art form in and of itself.
I tell people we have inverted control with the latest agent concepts. Instead of deterministic code treating LLMs as functions, we have LLMs determining the flow of the app and the interaction with the user. It is much more organic when it is done right and you can gain access to features you never coded. We have been implementing UI tools/widgets to allow a much more interactive experience and it is amazing to play with that idea. This will obviously be part of the standard toolkit of agentic software a year or two from now. The agent stack is just now forming and UI is a core piece of it.
Most UI's are fundamentally dumbed down, they're only good for repetitive tasks.
If you're doing any task that is non-repetitive enough such that the UI needs to change, what you really need or would like is an "assistant" who you can talk through, get feedback, and do the thing. Up until very recently, that assistant probably had to be human, but probably obviously, people are now working quite a bit on the virtual one.
That's a bad idea. It isn't deterministic. How do you even make documentation for users for your generative UI? It looks different for every single user.
Cold take: honestly, just let users learn how to use your software. Put all your options in a consistent location in menus or whatever - it's fine. Yes, it might take them a little bit. No, they won't use every feature. Do make it as easy to learn as possible. Don't alienate the user with UI that changes under their feet.
Is "learning" now a synonym of "friction" in the product and design world? I gather this from many modern thinkpieces. If I am wrong, I would like to see an example of this kind of UI that actually feels both learnable and seamless. Clarity, predictability, learnability, reliability, interoperability, are all sacrificed on this altar.
> The explosive popularity of AI code generation shows users crave more control and flexibility.
I don't see how this follows.
The chart with lines and circles is quite thought-leadershipful. I do not perceive meaning in it, however (lines are jagged/bad, circles are smooth/good?).
Plotly just shut off their Chart Studio web app and “replaced” it with a desktop app called Studio. That desktop app requires LLM chat input for every action. It uses this pattern and trying to figure out the magic words to make it do the basic tasks you have been doing with 3 clicks for the last decade is infuriating. Especially when you realize your data was local to your browser tab unless you saved it before and now it is unconditionally uploaded to a remote server with no obvious way to delete the data.
This is getting panned, probably for good reasons. But, in a similar vein, I really think that generative applications are going to be big in the future. User speaks (or OS predicts) what they want and an app spins up on the fly. I don’t think they’ll wipe out traditional apps, but I could see lots of long tail cases where they meet users needs.
> Users get personalized interfaces without custom code.
Personalized interfaces are bad. I don't want to configure anything, and I don't want anything automatically configured on my behalf. I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it.
Your UI should be clear and predictable. A chatbot should not be moving around the buttons. If I'm going to compare notes with my friend on how to use your software, all the buttons need to be in the same place. People hate UI redesigns for a reason: Once they've learned how to use your software, they don't want to re-learn. A product that constantly redesigns itself at the whims of an inscrutable chatbot which thinks it knows what you want is the worst of all possible products.
ALSO: Egregiously written article. I assume it's made by an LLM.
Yes and this is my biggest anxiety of future software and interfaces to come. You won't remember how you got there or did what because there are n permutations of getting there or doing that, except they're vaguely similar but not exactly the same thing. I too want predictable software (including UIs) that stays the same until I want to change/upgrade it myself as a user.
CLI will always be there, don't worry.
I think you are right in the 'current paradigm' of what software is at the moment, where users are using a fixed set of functionality in the way that the developer intended, but there is a new breed of software where the functionality set can't be defined in an exhaustive way.
Take Claude Code - after I've described my requirement it gives me a customised UI that asks me to make choices specific to what I have asked it to build (usually a series of dropdown lists of 3-4 options). How would a static UI do that in a way that was as seamless?
The example used in the article is a bit more specific but fair - if you want to calculate the financial implications of a house purchase in the 'old software paradigm' you probably have to start by learning excel and building a spreadsheet (or using a dodgy online calculator someone else built, which doesn't match your use case). The spreadsheet the average user writes might be a little simplified - are we positive that they included stamp duty and got the compounding interest right? Wouldn't it be great if Excel could just give you a perfectly personalised calculator, with toggle switches, without users needing to learn =P(1+(k/m))^(mn) but while still clearly showing how everything is calculated? Maybe Excel doesn't need to be a tool which is scary - it can be something everyone can use to help make better decisions regardless of skill level.
So yes, if you think of software only doing what it has done in the past, Gen UI does not make sense. If you think of software doing things it has never done before we need to think of new interaction modes (because hopefully we can do something better than just a text chat interface?).
Yeah, additionally imagine supporting something like that: "Yeah, I cannot reproduce your issue because things on my end look different". A nightmare for sure.
> I want it to just work; that kind of design takes effort & there's no way around it
Nothing "just works" for everyone. You are a product of your environment, people say apple interfaces/OSX are intuitive, I found them utterly unusable until I was forced to spend a lot of time to learn them.
Depending on which software you grew up using, you either find it intuitive or don't. If you found someone that has never used technology, no modern UI would be intuitive.
Personally, I hate it when software that I have to use daily is not configurable (and ideally extensible via programming). It's basically designed for the lowest common denominator for some group of users that product/design groups have decided is "intuitive".
> People hate UI redesigns for a reason...
I do agree here, stop changing things for the sake of changing things. When I owned some internal tools, I would go out of my way to not break user workflows. Even minor things, like tab-order, which I think most people don't think about, I'd have browser automation tests to make sure they remained consistent.
Ehhhh....
Is an AI driven feed not UI changes? Those are incredibly successful but the buttons change every refresh.
UIs do not need to be static. The key is that there is a coherent pattern to what's changing.
When you look at it through that lens it doesn't seem so exotic.
The case against complex UI hides the fact that nobody wants to take their time to learn a piece of software anymore. Attention spans are so short, if the system doesn't do all the thinking for you, why bother with it? We are just moving the human laziness through another layer of indirection. The fact never changed in the past 30 years: some domains are complicated and you need smart people on both ends who can bridge the gaps. The dream has always been the same with nocode, lowcode and whatever, it doesn't change this fundamental flaw.
Consider building your own blender software. If you know nothing about 3D you start off in your language and the LLM will happily produce UI for your level of understanding, which is limited. Over time you will reach an understanding that looks just like the software you were trying to replicate.
Currently the ecosystem around UI changes so much, because its always been a solved problem that people just keep reinventing to have... something to do I guess?
Are you talking about non-business customers?
B2B is a lot more rewarding in this sense. When you've found your power-user any piece of feedback is useful. If it's good enough for them, then the rest typically follows.
This also keeps my motivation when developing UI, because I know someone else cares.
Businesses forgot about this and I ended up a job where I just do whatever my PM says.
> The case against complex UI hides the fact that nobody wants to take their time to learn a piece of software anymore. Attention spans are so short, if the system doesn't do all the thinking for you, why bother with it? We are just moving the human laziness through another layer of indirection. The fact never changed in the past 30 years: some domains are complicated and you need smart people on both ends who can bridge the gaps. The dream has always been the same with nocode, lowcode and whatever, it doesn't change this fundamental flaw.
This has nothing to do with laziness or attention span. 20 years ago you'd have maybe a dozen programs tops to juggle and they were much better designed, because they were made by people who actually use the software instead of some bored designer at FAANG sweatshop who operates on metrics. Now you have 3-5 chat clients, 20 different web UIs for everything on 3 different OSs, all with different shortcuts. And on top of that it CONSTANTLY changes (looking at you Android and material 3).
5 things deserve knowing in-depth: browser (not a specific website, but browser itself), text editor, Spreadsheet application, terminal and whatever else software you use to put a bread on your table.
For any VCs that seriously think I'll invest non-trivial amount of time into learning their unique™ software – you're delusional. Provide shortcuts that resemble browser/vim/emacs/vscode and don't waste yours and my time.
On the face of it, this seems like a terrible idea. Interesting, but terrible. I’ve spent 30 years encouraging simple, repeatable, user-focused UI’s where hierarchies are explicit, pages are referenceable, search results are real URLs and so on. Randomness is generally bad - humans expect X module or block or whatever to be in the same place from visit to visit, not adapting based on some complex algorithm that “learns”.
UX and UI takes work, and it’s mostly work getting back to simplicity - things like “think more like a user and less like your organisation” in terms of naming conventions and structures, or making sure that content works harder than navigation in orienting users. I don’t think there’s any sort of quick fix here, it’s hard to get it right.
Simplicity is surprisingly complex :-)
There is a trade off with simplicity though - usually it requires being highly opinionated about which software features make the cut. Users or sales teams often want more features, but if you included every one the app would become a mess.
But there is a possible world where you can have both - every 'feature' your users would ever want without overwhelming complexity or steep learning curves, but with the possible downside/cost of reducing consistency.
I bristled at the title, article contents, and their spreadsheet example, but this does actually touch on a real paint point that I have had - how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software? By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
I do a lot of CAD. Every single keyboard shortcut I know was learned only because I needed to do something that was either *highly repetitive* or *highly frustrating*, leading me to dig into Google and find the fast way to do it.
However, everything that is only moderately repetitive/frustrating and below is still being done the simple way. And I've used these programs for years.
I have always dreamed of user interfaces having competent, contextual user tutorials that space out learning about advanced and useful features over the entire duration that you use. Video games do this process well, having long since replaced singular "tutorial sections" with a stepped gameplay mechanic rollout that gradually teaches people incredibly complex game mechanics over time.
A simple example to counter the auto-configuration interpretation most of the other commenters are thinking of. In a toolbar dropdown, highlight all the features I already know how to use regularly. When you detect me trying to learn a new feature, help me find it, highlight it in a "currently learning" color, and slowly change the highlight color to "learned" in proportion to my muscle memory.
> how do you enable power users to learn more powerful tools already present in the software?
On-the-job-training, honestly; like we've been doing for decades, restated as:
Employer-mandated required training in ${Product} competence: consisting of a "proper" guided introduction to the advanced and undiscovered features of a product combined with a proficiency examination where the end-user must demonstrate both understanding a feature, and actually using it.
(With the obvious caveat the you'll probably want to cut-off Internet access during the exam part to avoid people delegating their thinking to an LLM again; or mindlessly following someone else's instructions in-general)
My pet example is when ("normal") people are using MS Word when they don't understand how defined-styles work, and instead treat everything in Word as a very literal 1:1 WYSIWYG, so to "make a heading" they'll select a line of text, then manually set the font, size, and alignment (bonus points if they think Underlining text for emphasis is ever appropriate typography (it isn't)), and they probably think there's nothing more to learn. I'll bet that someone like that is never going to explore and understand the Styles system on their own volition (they're here to do a job, not to spontaneously decide to want to learn Word inside out, even on company time).
Separately, there are things like "onboarding popups" you see in web-applications thesedays, where users are prompted to learn about new and underused features, but I feel they're ineffective or user-hostile because those popups only appear when users are trying to use the software for something else, so they'll ignore or dismiss them, never to be seen again.
> By corollary, how do you turn more casual users into power users?
Unfortunately for our purposes, autism isn't transmissible.
Generative UI is incompatible with learning. It means every user sees something different, so you can't watch a tutorial or have a coworker show you what they do or have tech support send you a screenshot.
The solution could be search. It's not a House of Leaves.
> When you detect me trying to learn a new feature, help me find it...
"It looks like you're trying to learn a new feature. Would you like help?"
I miss Clippy.
I break out blender every six months or so in order to create a model for 3d printing. It needs to be precise and often has threads or other repetitive structures.
Every. Single. Time. I spend at least the first 3 hours relearning how to use all the tools again with Claude reminding me where modifiers are, and which modifier allows what. And which hotkey slices. Etc etc.
We’re working on something adjacent to this[0] by making fluid UIs for public (marketing landing content) front ends. AI allows even compiled code to be arbitrarily modified on the fly, and it’s only going to get easier to start with a “base” of content, functionality, and components - and compose the best outcome for a user.
[0] - https://kenobi.ai
it is a case of "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Microsoft already tried this in office when they made the menu order change with usage frequency. People hated it
"Your thumbs will learn" is a famous Steve Jobs quote from the 2007 iPhone launch.
the whole point of this is that the buttons keep moving so your fingers can't learn. When steve jobs said it, he thought about it first and was talking about something different
Only if the buttons on the iPhone aren't constantly being rearranged by a chatbot. Then they'll never learn.
But AI?
To me that agentic spreadsheet example looks more like some degenerative UI.
In theory this seems like a reasonable solution, but in practice, it really is impossible. Is the help documentation going to be generative too? Or can I only ask a chatbot?
Secondly, the concrete example is not generative UI, it’s just generated data getting put into a schema.
I think the hard part of design is that you must consider the trade off between a new user and a power user. Overwhelm against progressive disclosure. It’s an art form in and of itself.
I tell people we have inverted control with the latest agent concepts. Instead of deterministic code treating LLMs as functions, we have LLMs determining the flow of the app and the interaction with the user. It is much more organic when it is done right and you can gain access to features you never coded. We have been implementing UI tools/widgets to allow a much more interactive experience and it is amazing to play with that idea. This will obviously be part of the standard toolkit of agentic software a year or two from now. The agent stack is just now forming and UI is a core piece of it.
Here's why this is silly:
Most UI's are fundamentally dumbed down, they're only good for repetitive tasks.
If you're doing any task that is non-repetitive enough such that the UI needs to change, what you really need or would like is an "assistant" who you can talk through, get feedback, and do the thing. Up until very recently, that assistant probably had to be human, but probably obviously, people are now working quite a bit on the virtual one.
That's a bad idea. It isn't deterministic. How do you even make documentation for users for your generative UI? It looks different for every single user.
Cant wait to use a program that changes constantly
could this kind of interface make it harder for users to discover useful features they might not know to ask for?
Cold take: honestly, just let users learn how to use your software. Put all your options in a consistent location in menus or whatever - it's fine. Yes, it might take them a little bit. No, they won't use every feature. Do make it as easy to learn as possible. Don't alienate the user with UI that changes under their feet.
Is "learning" now a synonym of "friction" in the product and design world? I gather this from many modern thinkpieces. If I am wrong, I would like to see an example of this kind of UI that actually feels both learnable and seamless. Clarity, predictability, learnability, reliability, interoperability, are all sacrificed on this altar.
> The explosive popularity of AI code generation shows users crave more control and flexibility.
I don't see how this follows.
The chart with lines and circles is quite thought-leadershipful. I do not perceive meaning in it, however (lines are jagged/bad, circles are smooth/good?).
Plotly just shut off their Chart Studio web app and “replaced” it with a desktop app called Studio. That desktop app requires LLM chat input for every action. It uses this pattern and trying to figure out the magic words to make it do the basic tasks you have been doing with 3 clicks for the last decade is infuriating. Especially when you realize your data was local to your browser tab unless you saved it before and now it is unconditionally uploaded to a remote server with no obvious way to delete the data.
One of the key elements of effective UX is discoverability.
The user needs to able to discover the capabilities and limitations of the system they are using.
For most practical examples I can think of, this approach would complicate that, if not make it nearly impossible.
Thanks for sharing this.
This is getting panned, probably for good reasons. But, in a similar vein, I really think that generative applications are going to be big in the future. User speaks (or OS predicts) what they want and an app spins up on the fly. I don’t think they’ll wipe out traditional apps, but I could see lots of long tail cases where they meet users needs.
"Copilot, make me a drawing app."
MS Paint opens.
"No, Copilot! Make me a drawing app with feature X."
Fans turn on. Laptop gets hot. Ten minutes pass as the entire MS Paint codebase is downloaded and recompiled.
Finally, MS Paint opens. There's an extra button in the toolbar. It doesn't work.
Stuff like this guarantees future dev work. Its the new institutional spreadsheet mess.
> Stuff like this guarantees future dev work.
Don't worry, it'll be done by more LLMs.