NarcisMirandes

To make a regular iPad multipurpose seems a reasonable idea!

Thank you for the reference. After reading it I get the impression that the connection between the Tesla presentation and a technology that could be applied in real life is not close, to say it mildly. Do I understand?

Apple ecosystem and security seem too small problems to solve to me. I am surprised or there is something I am missing?

Yes in other cases, they learn from others then they make a very different product. But in this case, the products seem quite similar to the competitors. Only two important advantages: Apple ecosystem and emphasis on security. It surprises that do not even try to solve any big problem, if I read it well.

Now I understand more. But it surprises me that they did not explain it. Why do they not make a clear connection between the "show" and the real possible application in the real car?

Is this only a big Ad with a very far connection to reality?

So, the Tesla demonstration is just to show that they can make the car more "stick" to the road and then go faster. Do I understand?

I agree with you. Good point.

On the other side, we all have to admit that solving this problem in the Apple ecosystem has significant benefits for the user: 1- Useful for Apple users, obviously 2- The most important, a close system with soft and hard integration could make things work much better and improve Google and Amazon propositions.

And... ok make more money for Apple. But it will be fare if Apple is more useful for the user.

It seems that they are thinking more in their strategic position respect their competitors than in the consumer. They are solving a problem that was already solved.

There are so many important problems to solve. Is Apple then, not very ambitious here? Perhaps, it is only a first step a catch-up to their competitors Amazon and Google?

For me the founder is always the most important in any project. It helps to understand all the rest.

It looks really nice. I definitely will use it.

Many questions come to mind: - What is the revenue model? - What is your personal story? Why you do not explain it in the site?

"AI is a powerful tool for lowering the cost of understanding"

A very good analogy!

And do you think you and we all will be able to manage, control or just guide AI without understanding what AI is doing, without understanding the code?

And what do you think about Paul Graham point? if no one understands what AI does... the human will not "manage" AI. Do I interpret PG well?

I do not understand the people who say that. That is why I posted that question, to understand their point of view even when I do not share it with the information I have.

Yes! "love" is the key point here.

How could I improve my question?

Paul Graham says: "even if you have AIs writing all your code for you..." I would like him to extend that. I would like his opinion on the other side. What if not? What if AI is not writing all the code for you?...

I feel very identified with what you explain.

It happened the same to me when trying other programs. Swift and Xcode are my main tools, and I feel that AI is especially bad in the Apple environment. That is not related to those programs nor Apple but because in that world we care specially about design and details.

There is a "feeling" a sensibility, emotion behind the code that I think a machine will never get. That is why I think I should keep learning code in all environments and perhaps in Apple platforms, a tech I love. A machine will never feel that, will never love.

Your point makes sense. I think there is something about it. On the other side this reminds me that in life, not only code, I learn much more from good things than bad things. I learn more from people, books... that I admire, that do great things. I cannot learn much from the mistakes that others do. They can sometimes even be "noise" that distracts me from what I should focus.

In life I learn a lot from my mistakes, not much from others' mistakes. Could we apply that to AI and code?

What do you mean "soft skills" in this context?

Good point. I should have defined "learning" before. For me it is write and understand a language: - Know how to write enough to make 80% of an app that solves the problem I want. The rest 20% with the help of other resources AI or other but only as teachers or helpers. - Understand 80% of the code. Use other sources to understand the rest.

As I say in the question I use AI as a teacher. What confuses me is that I see some programmers that I admire that say something like "I do not code any more" I do not understand how could they make good work?

I love that. "It's OK to be a human"... "we don't need to justify"

Paul Graham use to say something like: You can't think well without writing well. If I interpret it well, he views writing not as a way to record thoughts, but as the actual tool used to discover and refine them.

If I understand he says this related to regular text but we could extend to writing code too.

So do you think that "no-code" is just a trend, and we will all go back to code, just in a different way?

Your distinction makes sense.

But still, I am building relatively small apps and I do nor see any AI making clean, organized, long-term code. I do not see any path that they could do it in a near future.

You say it better than be. This is my experience also. What surprises me is that I see so many important "coders" saying things like "I have stop coding, AI is doing it all" They will lose control of the code and forget how to do it well.

What could the a solution?

As Paul Graham says, we should be ambitious and optimistic. Energy is a big problem to solve. Perhaps the most important next problem? As @hodder says, YC is not the best place to build this. So, it is reserved for the big ones? What could be the solution? How to incentivize the creation of more in this field?