A note from the original author, possibly even a minor nerd celebrity, expressing surprise at this making the HN page and gratitude for those that rediscovered and reposted it.
I won't debate this. I'm a fan of the enduring pipe operator and the simple elegance of process composition in *nix. My point was more: what will we need them for? To review code written by a bot? GUI tools are better for this IMHO, or at least, terminals aren't any better than GUI tools, possibly worse. To read the plan output of Claude code, why would I want raw markdown in a terminal when I can read the formatted output as intended in a different tool?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting "the future is IDEs/GUI/etc" but that it's some potentially new refinement over TUIs and GUIs where the focus is no longer on editing, tinkering, debugging, but perhaps new tools that make it easier and efficient to work with agent swarms and give them instruction/prompts.
I'm not convinced that terminal orientedness of AI tooling itself will last. My hypothesis is that it was chosen by developers of the current generation building for developers of the current generation. I hypothesize that there is a future where command lines and terminals don't matter, and hence I feel the focus will shift to, as the author points out, to planning, reviewing and ideation tools none of which demands a command line. In fact I expect an entirely new class of tool to emerge that does these things well that is neither an IDE nor terminal based. I think Claude Code's core will live but it's interface will morph in the coming years to adapt to the builders of the next generation. The analogy I use is my kids and manual transmission cars -- they grow up with EVs and single gear drives with linear torque curves, and will have no nostalgia for a manual transmission, engine noises, or supercharger whines. If you never used a terminal, will you pine for it?
Isn't there a point at which it trains itself on these various outputs, or someone somewhere draws one and feeds it into the model so as to pass this benchmark?
Can someone enlighten me as to what the debate here is really about? Is the concern that the implementers of age gating could steal data? Is it that one entity (the "government") would obtain information about your age, etc? Doesn't this already happy IRL? Why is an online version suddenly more draconian?
As a parent, here is my perspective:
- there is no debate about seat belts in cars. I'm not choosing whether or not my child should or should not wear them
- there is no debate about ID checking outside businesses that sell alcohol. No one is debating whether I should get to choose whether my 7 year old has alcohol or not
- pornographic content on television is already banned and we have ratings for media content
- etc
Why are "privacy" and "freedom" arguments for age-gating of internet content? As a parent, it is impossible for me to gate access or exposure to internet content like 4chan or YouTube conspiracy theorists and what not on my kids' developing brains so some mandated help sounds common sensical. And busy, poor, or uninitiated parents may not have time to invest in something like self-driven internet censoring, and I believe society as a whole benefits when every child is automatically kept safe from unsavory content (by definition a subjective phrase yet a moral choice every society must make).
I can see an argument for mandating that every parent must individually purchase an in home internet age-gating "device" (hardware, software or whatnot) as a compromise so that the gating is still done by the parent (possibly with the help of a third party of their choice) while the mandation is done by the government. But it seems overly heavy handed in the other direction to me to say everything everywhere should be accessible to everybody of every age without gating and left to individuals (often sometimes with poor, underdeveloped, or temporarily ill-advised) judgment.
Looking for someone to change my mind on some of these (or links to studies or articles making the arguments pro-freedom in this context). I'll also virtue-signal for context, that I'm fully aware of and actively mourn the ill effects of corporations like Meta, etc that vacuum up our data and build profiles and sell to data brokers, etc.