GenUI isn't about designing cosmetic "skins." (Usually, anyway. I guess it could be used for that)
It's generally for letting users customize the own workflows. How many times have you, or one of your users, liked a piece of software because it mostly fits an existing workflow but that remaining 20% is an annoyance, or maybe even a dealbreaker?
This is probably more common for businesses. They have existing procedures. and they want your software to fit into their existing processes and workflows... not the other way around.
GenUI is far from a one size fits all approach or magic bullet, but it can address a lot of those situations that either would have been dealbreakers, annoyances, or change requests. I suppose it can also help with user retention; once they've put the time and effort into customizing your product they theoretically are less likely to switch to a competitor.
Existing OpenAI/Anthropic models seem to already handle this pretty well. As you might expect, letting users describe their own UI is pretty easy. The hard part is making it work and making sure they don't escape their sandbox...
As a user, most GUIs are awful. I’m fairly certain that this thing could, for example, vibe up a better UI for Amazon Music in less time than it takes me to find the music I’ve purchased and downloaded (because the system is more interested in funneling me toward a streaming subscription that I don’t have).
Of course pushing users toward subscription services they don’t need is part of the design goal. So I guess something where the user vibecodes up their own UI will not become standard. But we can dream.
There are governments with working institutions believe or not.
Also, I just read up and in our legal system a nonindividual agreement is nonbinding if “it is drastically against the consumer’s interests or against ‘good manners’”, with free legal help for consumers affected.
E.g. last year PayPal was forbidden from giving out bans and suspensions of user accounts based on vague and overly broad rationales. They were also charged $25M for that, but that’s peanuts.
If you think about, a good government has institutions where there are people whose full time job is to look at hands of corporations and listen to citizens. I know this may sound like sci-fi if you don’t live in a country like that.
Executive branch in Poland and I guess the rest of Europe as well. Bureau for Consumer Affairs. They make decisions, give penalties to corps and invalidate harmful ToS.
Then if a corporation doesn’t like it (and they never do), they can appeal in court.
E.g. PayPal is appealing rn because their shitty ToS were invalidated last year and they were punished for them.
The judiciary is a branch of government. But more crucially, some countries have better consumer protection agencies, eliminating the need for people to go through costly court battles for common sense stuff.
Presumably the stress one endures when their way of life is challenged significantly is life changing. Not that you’d care though, by the sounds of it.
The natural state of being is freedom, it up to society to restrict what they deemed necessary and punish the offenders. Unless the body of water or reservoir are claimed by the government then it is free for anyone to use, quality notwithstanding. Safe, clean water implies certain amount of processing and I agree that unless it is explicitly written then it is up to the users to sanitize that water
The position is not that the government needs to ensure that all bodies of water are potable or that the government needs to provide clean water to every resident.
The claim is that you have a 1983 case against state officials that tell you that the municipal water is clear when they know it is in fact contaminated with lead.
Such concerns were present, and rightly so. Concern and critique is important to express so that we are sure new tech is useful and negative side-effects are realised and appropriately mitigated.
Job displacement: When the Internet first arrived in a significant number of non-technical lives, there were concerns about research jobs and library jobs. In fact it increased the need for that sort of thing so increased that sort of job, and even if it hadn't the access to information for the average person would have been worth that cost. As remote work grew initially, then massively in 2020, there were major concerns about that sort of thing again (people working in Manchester on London wages, going into the office very little, it being even easier to outsource jobs to countries with cheaper workforces, etc.). These concerns are still being debated today, and that is quite valid.
Ethics: Hell yes. And again, it is good that we are still refining what we think is acceptable to this very day. There have been ethical concerns almost from the start of the Internet in the public mind, and they have only increased over time as new parts of it take shape.
Environmental: That is a lot less relevant, as the Internet itself didn't directly have the sort of impact that LLMs are having. There have been local concerns though, over the building of data-centers and the power infrastructure to support them, disturbing land to lay cables, and so forth, and again these concerns are still relevant (though have somewhat folded into just being a concern about LLMs & related ATM as they are the main reason for the current rapid growth).
Skill Atrophy: The Internet never really threatened that, except maybe a small amount of concern wrt certain research roles, it increased the base level of those skills in the general population much more than it had any negative effects (but people did raise the concerns). It gave better access to training and knowledge, but wasn't actually doing things for us in the same way LLMs and the agent systems linked to them are being used, you still needed to learn from that information/training in order to complete your task.
The advent of the internet was collaborative and based on introducing shared protocols for a couple of decades. It deserved criticism when globalised capitalism got involved, and monopolies started forming, leading to rent-seeking, excessive centralisation, and enshittification.
The impact is that the internet has a fraction of the value to improve people's lives as it should have. It is a very poor free market, incredibly poor competition because of lack of standards and protocols and interoperability. People's minds are ground down by social media, search engines don't work well any more and so on.
So yes - every new technology deserves many criticisms, so they can be addressed, and as a society we can gain the benefits of that technology and minimise the disadvantages.
The printing press lead to copyright, public libraries, universal literacy... All things which are now widely celebrated. They took centuries to work out, and are all government and regulatory intervention to fix problems critics noticed and campaigned about.
AI is the same, only it is at risk of moving much faster and having a much large negative impact before society reacts.
So no, most of the criticism of LLMs are not wrong - they are correct, as are the people saying the technology of LLMs is useful to people and the economy.
Critics are friends of a new technology - without responding to every criticism in a significant way, AI will rapidly lead to a Butlerian jihad. If you like AI, you should love criticism of AI even more.
