I am not sure that LLMs change much with regards to malleable software. A lot of software used to be somewhat malleable [1]. But that got removed, because it wasn't A/B testable or it wasn't the most easy implementation thinkable. Those two points are not changed by LLMs. Therefore, I doubt we will see a resurgence of malleable or at least configurable and scriptable software. Although, I would love to see it. Even those small features to adapt the application to your style of working instead of the other way around was extremely useful, imho.
[1] There was a time, when it was considered a standard feature of a UI that you could change keyboard shortcuts and toolbars. MacOS and Mac OS X even had an API that end users could use to script across multiple applications. Amiga OS had something similar based on the language Rexx.
> I think writing little plugins and drivers to do the thing you want with an LLM is something that could be built into a lot of software.
Containing the craziness within low level drivers sounds like the perfect way to do several great things: fuzz the OS for vulnerabilities, finally relieve embedded engineers of what they clearly hate so much, save good tech from the scrap heap. So many wins!
I have yet to meet a non-dev who wants to write or modify software themselves. Quite a few people still don't know that it's the software that makes appliances and devices do things and that it is written. They just don't know what software is so how would they know where to begin writing or modifying code?
Start with macro recorders [0] that let users record and replay sequences of operations. This already exists in certain household appliances, or when making a music playlist. Give them the ability to view and modify the macro code. Add loops and variables etc., and some portion of people will create more complex macros, even if they are no software developers and have no interest in being one. It’s like writing a cooking recipe, people understand that. Apple iOS Shortcuts are also a form of that.
Yet I'm sure many of those non-devs have used Excel / LibreOffice / Lotus 1-2-3 to build something that is more-than-a-list-or-grid (anytime you put `=` into a cell, you are programming).
You've never met a non-dev who complains about the UX of Outlook, wants to adjust the contents of their Twitter/Facebook feed, or wishes to tweak the styles of their blog?
A lot of Microsoft Office and adjacent programs have customizable UIs almost to the point of absurdity for decades yet it's uncommon to see anyone actually change the default layouts, adjust panes, or view modes.
Maybe it's because everyone hates toolbars and ribbons, but why? Perhaps it's that the number of options is overwhelming. I am fairly certain most humans have seen code and their naive impression is that it's "cluttered"/"noisy". That impression is not because it's text or a ton of buttons staring back, but the cognitive overhead of actually understanding what you're looking at. LLMs can create or suggest things, but the user still has to comprehend something to continue interacting. That's where the interaction falls apart.
What I can see is LLMs taking natural language input and curating catalogs of software or plugins. As it stands searching for software by feature is a terrible experience even for devs.
I completely agree that the UX for toolbar customization currently sucks, but that's exactly what LLMs are being proposed as a replacement for.
When the UX is not a barrier, people love customizing their devices! My collogues of all abilities use different Outlook themes, and everybody's mother and their dog have changed their backgrounds and ringtones.
Yeah, but do they create folders and rules for their inbox?
Backgrounds and ringtones don't require any meaningful comprehension. It makes a lot of sense to assume the user would get an itch to stop looking at the same pictures and hearing the same ringtones all the time. That's as far as their desire for customization would go. It's similar to why cars have stereos and paint colors. Anyone can pay money for more customization, but few do.
Inbox rules are just about the simplest actually useful thing someone might do, but probably doesn't. That's a pretty clear signal to me they don't care. That end user cognition is the actual barrier.
In so many words, the user is dumb and complacent. Computers aren't going to think for them no matter how advanced the AI. They also don't want the computer thinking for them.
They want to get things done with stability. Computers are not their focus in life. Imagine an office full of people constantly changing how they work and forcing and politicking their bullshit onto other people (like devs do all the time). That's a normal person's nightmare.
Currently if I desire to make the "new mail" button always available, some technical individual would have to devote hours of their time to figuring out the required changes.
Replace a technical individual with an LLM and the story becomes completely different. People love complaining! If that's all that's required to make changes then I bet we'd see a lot more of it.
Complaining to, praying to, or bullying an AI god is not going to solve anything. I expect this god to bring upon apocalypse. In the world of software, by its very definition, the righteous ones can only be the developers.
Pleasing everyone was never a people problem or a logic puzzle. It's fundamentally intractable and trivial to see how quickly contradictions would arise in any meaningful set of rules.
Imagine if practically all the writing you encountered was in printed books and magazines. Talk about "personal writing", how it might change things, how to get there, would get back puzzled looks and "Even if it's possible, it's still a lot of work. I just don't see that as the typical consumer behavior." It is a lot of work to produce a book.
Some relevant background: Bonnie Nardi, A Small Matter of Programming.
Even if it's possible, it's still a lot of work. I just don't see that as the typical consumer behavior.