Isn’t that kinda the point, though? If you already lack the required knowledge to ask a web-based chat UI (which, as an aside, is almost exclusively referring to ChatGPT Free for the average user) to build a HTML page, how could you possibly know to go search for Lovable, let alone figure out agents?
I feel as though the gap between the theoretical power of LLMs and what the average user knows of them and their capability have already widened so far that it’s irreconcilable.
> how could you possibly know to go search for Lovable, let alone figure out agents?
Is this an actually serious question? Am I losing my mind here?
I didn't tell my HR friend about Lovable: she found it on her own. Of course someone's not going to Google for Lovable if they've never heard of it, but they might Google for "how do I build a website without knowing anything about it?", or ask ChatGPT the same question.
They're also, most likely, getting endless ads for AI services that help you build various kinds of software shoved into their faces all the time - these ads may not couch the value ad in exactly these terms, but that's fundamentally what they're advertising.
Not everybody is like this but there are plenty of people in the world who, when they have a problem, are quite motivated to find ways to solve it off their own backs.
Yes, it is. I just Googled that exact question (and I promise I'm not trying to be obstinate when I say I'm Googling the exact phrase!) and it's automated AI response was to use WiX or Squarespace. Prompting it further with "What if I want it to do bespoke things that Squarespace can't do?" it responded with using Figma to design the website UI and then pass it along to either Framer or a "professional developer".
I do genuinely think that this is a discoverability issue. Of course, if you prompt it further with "Could I use AI to do this?" it dutifully responds that it can help with generating HTML, but that's three layers of difficulty to eventually get whatever default model Gemini has for signed-out Google searches to even suggest HTML.
Absolutely! In my opinion, the only way to learn anything in any meaningful way is to actually do the thing. In the example you described, you'll quickly start jumping into "Wait, how do I configure a firewall?" and discovering ufw et. al.
Problem it isn't an API, it is just unexpected consequences of how a few things work. Fixing this just isn't easy as the simple attempts will break even more than the frustrating thing you are trying to fix - and thus be worse.
That said, Microsoft should have fixed this long ago - it is hard but a few people can do it given a few years to work through all the special cases.
Not just frustrating, it's a security hole. Stealing focus means a user may expect to be typing a password but find it's inputted somewhere they did not expect.
> ... anyone who thinks like this is suffering from abused dog syndrome and unironically has lost at life.
I mean, social anxiety - the neurosis itself - is just this. People haven't "lost at life" for having a mental health problem. I think it's quite commendable that someone can recognise their own shortcomings in this regard and work on it in a positive light.
What you might find easy, someone else might find exceedingly difficult - for example, people who find it difficult to keep up their health when they are clinically depressed.
I assume there's like a single manager who's job it was was to maintain notepad and force use of AI, so obviously, vibe code needless features because if it's not broke, how can you fix it with AI.
> "adding rich text editing features to a text editor”
Yeah, we already had that. In the form of Wordpad. Which was EOL'd. And now we have Notepad with AI features.
Notepad was, and always should have been, a simple & lightweight text box for storing and editing text only files. If you wanted to edit something more complicated, you could use the other tool that was built into Windows specifically for that.
The point is that there was basically no reason to totally kill Wordpad in the way that they did. They're different products and the new Notepad is closer to the ideal version of Wordpad than what Notepad is supposed to be, and now there's no Notepad.
> So management basically have no clue and want you to figure out how to use AI?
This is basically the same story I have heard both my own place of employment and also from a number of friends. There is a "need" for AI usage, even if the value proposition is undefined (or, as I would expect, non-existent) for most businesses.
Further to this - even if the script doesn't contain malware and you're 100% happy to run with this persons' defaults, you probably still shouldn't, as it doesn't teach you what you're actually doing.
Presuming you're a relatively non-technical person who follows this verbatim, what happens when this page goes down? Or Vultr is no longer an option? Do you even really know what you've set up?
To be fair though, I don't think it's unreasonable for the "average user" to expect that there are sensible defaults for the things they buy / install.
Obviously, there's a huge difference between something like a car and your OS of choice (specifically noting the 'of choice' part of that when it comes to installing a Linux distribution), but I feel as though the sentiment is roughly the same.
I feel as though the gap between the theoretical power of LLMs and what the average user knows of them and their capability have already widened so far that it’s irreconcilable.