Can they do it without LLMs?

If they can't, did they really do it in the first place?

Are they actually literate in the programming languages they're using?

I don't write any front-end code at work anymore. I use Figma MCP and Cursor and it can implement the design near perfectly on first try.

To be fair, this is presumably because a skilled human spends time properly making the design for you in Figma.

It doesn't really matter how "skilled" the designer is. Figma's MCP already provides HTML and CSS that's basically ready, and all AI needs to do is translate that into React or whatever. Or if you mean that AI wouldn't be able to make a proper interface without the human, that's also not true. The only reason I use Figma MCP is that my company uses Figma and has a dedicated Figma person. My opinion is that is just a bottleneck, and it would be easier to prompt AI to make whatever interface.

> The only reason I use Figma MCP is that my company uses Figma and has a dedicated Figma person. My opinion is that is just a bottleneck, and it would be easier to prompt AI to make whatever interface.

Here's where our opinions differ - I think replacing that Figma person with AI prompts will negatively affect product in a way that is noticeable to the end-user and effects their experience.

It does of course depend what kind of product you're making, but I'd say most of the time this holds.

I'm not even arguing that you should replace the Figma person with AI. I am arguing that even without AI, having Figma persons is a bottleneck. It is much faster to just use some kind of component library, like shadcn, and let the developer figure it out. And with AI that would be even faster, as the developer wouldn't have to write any code, just check the AI output and prompt to make changes if needed. Unless of course you need one of those really fancy landing pages, but even then, you would likely need a specialized developer, and not a Figma person.

If you work in B2B SaaS, sure, I guess. That's a lot of HN by virtue of being a lot of SF VC, but only a tiny part of all tech. Elsewhere shadcn isn't a realistic option.

I'm curios, where is "elsewhere"?

..literally everything that isn't a recent, up and coming B2B SaaS. So >90% of the software written today.

To give but one example, effectively all of the >$300B mobile app market. Or all enterprise software that can't run on Electron. Or any company that cares about image/branding across their products, which is every single company past a certain size (and don't come at me with "but hot AI startup uses Shadcn and are valued at X trillion").

I will come at you at say that >90% of software written today is garbage, and >90% of companies are run by incompetent people. My hypothesis is that is the reason why we "need" Figma persons and project managers.

My mom could do that with dreamweaver 25 years ago.

This is such a tired argument.

Could people write scientific code without python? If they can't, did they really do it in the first place?

Could people write code without use after free bugs without using a GC'd language? If they can't, did they really do it in the first place?

Could people make a website without WYSIWYG editor? If they can't, did they really make a website?

I think LLMs have aggressively facilitated the rise of illiteracy in people attending software development university programs.

I think graduates of these programs are far, far worse software developers than they were in the recent past.

edit: i think you mean "irrelevant", not "irreverent". that being said, my response is an expansion of the point made in my comment that you replied to.

> I think LLMs have aggressively facilitated the rise of illiteracy in people attending software development university programs.

But this subthread is about interns who did not study CS, and are able to create advanced UIs using LLMs in the short time they had left to finish their project.

I'll start by saying that this seems irreverent to my previous comment.

That being said, I half agree but I think we see things differently. Based on what I've seen, the "illiterate" are those who would have otherwise dropped out or done a poor job previously. Now instead of exiting the field, or slowly shipping code they didn't understand (because that has always been a thing) they are shovelling more slop.

That's a problem, but it's at most gotten worse rather than come out of thin air.

But, there are still competent software engineers and I have seen with my own eyes how AI usage makes them more productive.

Similarly, some of those "illiterate" are those who now have the ability to make small apps for themselves to solve a problem they would not be able to before, and I argue that's a good thing.

Ultimately, people care about the solution to their problems, not the code. If (following the original anecdote) someone with an LLM can build a UI for their project I frankly don't think it matters whether they understood the code. The UI is there, it works, and they can get one with the thing that is actually important: using the UI for their bigger goal.

Does it matter?