Design

The current paradigm of "here's a chat box, adapt to it" feels increasingly primitive as we understand more about cognitive diversity and how people actually work.

I've had really interesting chats about this with a few strong founders and design leads, and what keeps coming up is this tension between the universal and the personal. Everyone wants that magical "it just works" feeling, but "it" looks completely different for different minds.

The most compelling vision is interfaces that start simple and universal but gradually learn your cognitive fingerprint.

CTO @beelinesai, CPO @snickerdoodle, CEO Zealous. YC/TS Alum & Mentor

yeah that's what im getting at-- ui will morph to your needs

AI eats UI - that patten is increasingly observable.

Most people don’t have the patience to figure out the nuances of your app, but they can certainly describe what they want (with words, audio, video, etc).

If the complaint is the modality (text), then offer more, better options.

History, tech stuff, SEO/marketing, shitposting, etc. etc.


https://paragraph.com/@afaik

This seems correct to me, only thing that puts me off is that all of these experiences have to start from some common starting point…CLI is too broad, causes confusion & paralysis. GUI is too strict, channels people into fixed app flows

Maybe text isn’t the universal interface but the universal starting point

I believe rigid UI will be a thing of the past. interfaces will adapt and shifts between chat, canvas, tables, whatever actually works for how you think

Is it the wrong way to think about it to assume that even for every person there should only be one UX?

Seems very reasonable and even ideal for UX to change not just based on person but on different circumstances for the same person