upvote

points

by M4R5H4LL1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby deadbabe23 hours ago|
next
[-]
This is like the story of the businessman and the fisherman.

Why on earth are you going to build out a whole product: doing marketing, security, incorporation, customer support, etc… just so you can finally arrive at the end result of… teaching yourself a language?

The toy app is 100% of the value. You don’t need all that other shit, you just need a really good prompt. It’s exactly how you don’t need to search websites anymore, just ask AI for the answer and get it immediately. You don’t need a full app, just ask AI exactly what you want.

reply
upvoteby owebmaster21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
you think a chat UI is the apex UX? Most of us don't agree with that. On top of that, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini apps all sucks.
reply
upvoteby deadbabe19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You don’t get it, you can just tell an AI to build you a UI as some html page and use that.
reply
upvoteby owebmaster17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I do get it and you don't get that AI just can't do UX better than humans, and probably will take many, many years to catch up, if they do. I dare to say that UX is probably one of the few things humans will always do better.
reply
upvoteby deadbabe16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You’re still thinking about mass market UX.

A UX someone builds for themselves and makes sense to them is going to be way better than something a designer puts together for the masses. That’s the promise of AI, totally custom software down to the individual user level.

reply
upvoteby owebmaster16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I will still bet that great apps with much better UX than your average vibecoder will still continue to make people rich.
reply
upvoteby deadbabe5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
UX won’t make you rich anymore in a world where people want their own custom versions of apps.
reply
upvoteby deanc1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
That's exactly my point. This is at best a toy application driven by a prompt that many people will be able to extract and recreate. Putting the pieces together is easy and letting someone talk to an AI is not a particularly difficult problem. Creating magic and making people come back to learn the language is entirely different and I don't see anything magical here.
reply
upvoteby M4R5H4LL1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think you're missing the point entirely. Yes, it's easy to reproduce 5% of the effort. But it doesn't make sense to call the whole 100% of the effort a toy application. Given market pressure, and if it was the case, we'd be flooded with applications like that. Being the master of 5% of the effort doesn't amount to much, and dismissing the other 95% as a toy when it requires a lot more work and as much expertise throughout doesn't make much sense. Drawing an airplane doesn't make it fly.
reply
upvoteby owebmaster21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Putting the pieces together is easy and letting someone talk to an AI is not a particularly difficult problem

Exactly! Not difficult, right? Making and selling a product out of it is called marketing. It is not rocket science, but many engineers can't grasp it.

GPT Wrappers are the new CRUD. There is no innovation in Trello, Jira and any other SaaS, they are just marketed products that thousands of people here in HN could code better, but they don't, because they are wasting their time pointing that other people's products are not a difficult problem to solve.

reply
upvoteby TypingOutBugs11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Be honest though, what’s the difference between this and a good system prompt in Claude to be a language tutor?

I worked for an Edtech startup before that had a novel approach to mastery (as opposed to Anki) and it’s not something you can put in a prompt.

reply
upvoteby owebmaster1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
a prompt doesn't market itself. The difference is small but one person can sell the wrapper but can't sell the Claude as language tutor. People will hustle.
reply