The issue is that before AI, 1% of the population was capable of creating 1 side project per year. After AI, 10% of the population is capable of creating 10 side projects per year. The competition grew by 100x. The pessimist in me thinks that the window of opportunity to create something successful is shrinking.
> The pessimist in me thinks that the window of opportunity to create something successful is shrinking.
Dunno man. Ideas alone aren't worth anything [0] and execution is everything [1], but good ideas and great execution will never go out of style regardless of how much competition is out there. I'm of the opinion that even if 10% of the population is now capable of creating a side project, there's still the same relatively-fixed amount of people capable of making a good side project, and even fewer who will see it through to a real product. Nothing has really changed in the aggregate. It's like architecture, there are always improvements in materials, tools and processes, and Claude and Codex can provide more laborers for almost free, but most people are still gonna be building uninspired McMansions instead of the Guggenheim.
Disagree. Ideas were a necessary component of the one project I had success with. BTW, the line between ideas and execution is blurred. Is coming up with innovative UI and features ideas or execution?
Ideas are obviously a prerequisite, but they aren't "worth anything" because there is so many of them and without them being executed well (or sometimes, executed at all), they don't really bring any value.
So really, they are comparatively cheap. I, for one, have hundreds of ideas, but always lacked the time to execute on 5% of them.
Good ideas (and the ability to recognize them) are very valuable in my opinion. It also depends on what you mean by an idea:
- A todo app better than the existing ones
- A todo app with these 3 features
- A todo app with these 3 features, here's how the UI would look
I have tens of ideas, but maybe 1 - 3 that I believe have a meaningful chance to become successful and generate income ($20k annually or more) with great execution. I find it hard to come up with ideas that have a fairly clear path to success and can generate income.
I have hundreds of ideas which I think can generate revenue of the sort you describe, but they need significant work each (execution). Note that $20k annually is already full annual salary in half of the world too.
A very simple one: interview scheduling tool integrated with multiple calendars.
Eg. when interviewing, sometimes I have a pool of interviewers, and I want a pair to be offered to a candidate (they only see time slots, obviously) with certain internal conditions (one expert from this pool, another from this pool; eg. tech stack or timezone), while equally loading all of them.
Sounds simple but I could never find a tool that does it, and I believe companies might be interested just like they get tools like calendly just for limited purposes.
iCal format is simple on the face of it, but companies have restrictions on the feeds, and accounting for recurring events and working hours is not as trivial.
> I'm of the opinion that even if 10% of the population is now capable of creating a side project, there's still the same relatively-fixed amount of people capable of making a good side project, and even fewer who will see it through to a real product. Nothing has really changed in the aggregate.
What do you mean "nothing has changed"? Using your numbers, the SNR went off a cliff.
Use HN as an example - I used read the new stories all the time before they hit the frontpage, and upvote as needed.
But with 100s of slop submitted for every 1 actual good article, I can't do that anymore.
IOW, I have finite time. If 10% of the population is now able to vomit out side-projects, I am never going to find the one good one because it will be lost in a sea of rubbish.
Correct, but I was replying to the assertion that more slop == decreasing ability to create something good and successful. That's a common trope that people deploy with regards to everything: music, movies, books, social media accounts, brands, blogs, pizza shops, whatever, and it's consistently shown to be false. Plus, we don't live in a monoculture anymore, the SNR you're thinking of is proportional to the mainstream. Successful things nowadays are far more siloed, specific, and serve distinct niches.
And you're right that people still have limited, fixed bandwidth with regards to attention available to give to things.. and the same amount of things that break through doesn't change from what could break through and stick before (in the monoculture). But the amount of niches/verticals where you have the opportunity to break through inside of is significantly higher than ever. That gives you a better chance for success, because your audience is more targeted, more receptive, hungrier for authenticity, hungrier for quality, and desperate for connection to something they like.
TL;DR if you have a good, valuable idea that people want (or don't yet know that they want), execute it well, deliver something that is undeniable, promote it effectively, and stick it out for the long haul, you'll find success. There's no magic formula beyond that, and it doesn't matter if there are 10 or 10 million amateurs clogging the toilet bowl next to you.
> Correct, but I was replying to the assertion that more slop == decreasing ability to create something good and successful. T
True; I misunderstood.
You are contending the assertion "more slop == decreasing ability to create quality", I am asserting that "more slop == lower overall quality".
FWIW, there's probably an argument to be made against your assertion as stated above, but it's probably going to be a long-winded and ultimately weak one. I'm not really in the mood to explore weak arguments, TBH.
Why do you look at it that way? Why does anyone beside you have to care about what you do?
Just build something for yourself. You will always have things you'd like to build for yourself. You will be in competition with yourself only and your target audience will be yourself.
Market forces do not apply to side-projects, because that's what people do for fun.
Just because there are chess computers, doesn't mean that no one plays chess anymore at home.
Isn't it obvious? The reward that a personal project can generate for you is limited. It's not remotely close to what a successful project would give you - money, fulfillment, social capital, feeling good about yourself, etc.
It was wrong to write software you hoped others would use? The entire open source ecosystem works on this idea otherwise there would be no point in sharing and we can move to closed software.
Yeah but we've told ourselves that writing software was some kind of higher mathematics, where in reality it was mostly just plumbing that, surprise, a computer can do too.
> It was wrong to write software you hoped others would use?
Yes.
> The entire open source ecosystem works on this idea otherwise there would be no point in sharing and we can move to closed software.
No.
The _actual_ open source system consisted of hackers scratching their own itch and sharing the artifacts, because (it was assumed that) sharing is free. So if the work is already done and solved their problem, why not also share it as gift.
This remains unchanged.
The driving force of FOSS is not "how can I fix someone else's problem". It never has been.
Well.. maybe on HN it was different, but that's not "the open source ecosystem". And, yes, maybe some corps have gaslit naive people into believing that they must donate their lives to said corps.
> The _actual_ open source system consisted of hackers scratching their own itch and sharing the artifacts, because (it was assumed that) sharing is free. So if the work is already done and solved their problem, why not also share it as gift.
If you have the time tona scratch your own itch and gift the results, it implies you have a source of income that gives you the time/lifestyle to do such a thing. You might be a tenured academic, or live in a society with a strong safety net. Or you might be able to do your day job in 1/2 the allotted time.
The problem is that a those scenarios are eroding precipitously, leaving more to seek compensation for their work output, whether it is closed or open source.
You think there won't be students or academics anymore? Arguably, most non-corporate-supported (when that became a thing) FOSS was created by students and academics.
Higher education is less affordable and accessible to more families, and the value proposition is eroding. CS academics survive by joint ventures with corporations, not by their University salaries.
Escalating cost of living and reduction in institutional support systems push more people toward allocating their scarce spare time toward fundamental needs rather than contributing to the software commons.
I see your point, thanks — it definitely rings true!
I agree the scale will change, but most of the core FOSS we depend on today has started off when software development was not as lucrative as it was in the past 2+ decades — which means it can still happen. It does change the dynamics as you say.
I can’t speak for everyone but it seems to me to be a very human drive to want to be useful to others.
If you are good at something that you enjoy doing and that is valued by others, that’s the ideal scenario. And that’s what writing software looked like for many people for a long time.
That doesn’t mean you should do things just to please others. And it also doesn’t mean you can’t do something just because you enjoy doing it. But it means that these people now have a diminished ability to employ their unique skills to help others while doing something they love doing. That can sting, understandably.
Not only that, I have a feeling a lot of people are gonna be disappointed now they can implement their side projects in a week instead of 6 months. Finally - the thing is there, ready. And the likely outcome is
a) Almost no one but you cares and
b) Now that this has become trivial, there's no much joy in it. The struggle we had before A.I was the real joy; prompting agents for a few days and getting what you want isn't that joyful.
Ironically I had a very smart and otherwise reasonable math professor who, shortly after Kasparov lost to Deep Blue, said in class that chess was no longer interesting.
It's possible. At that time people were talking about Go as the next frontier (that didn't last long). IMO, the game is the same, and for 99.9999% of folks who ever play it, whether a computer can beat the best human is irrelevant in how fun it is to play.
Maybe, but LLMs solve but one issue (maybe two). Take me, for example. I am highly proficient regarding software development in most aspects. Except for that tiny problem: I wouldn't even know what to build. And at least for me, LLMs could not help with that.
The whole side project or even private project thing doesn't just hinge on being able to produce software. There's a lot more.
It's like the business of selling electric drills. People don't really want drills they want holes. But holes are difficult to sell so the selling the drills is a proxy for that.
In software it's the same thing. People don't really want software they want data and data transformation. But traditionally the proxy for that has been selling the software (either as a desktop app or then later as sole kind of service).
You could argue that in either case the proxy is not what people want but yet because of the difficulty of selling the "actual" thing the proxy market has flourished.
We're now inventing a new tool that will completely disrupt that market and any software business that is predicated on the complexity required to create the software to transform the data is going to get severely disrupted. Software itself will be worthless.
The value of computers since its inception was that it's capable of transforming data very, very fast and autonomously. But someone has to input that data from the real world or capture it using some device, and someone has to write the rules.
What happened is that we created a whole world of information and the rules has become very complex. Now we have multiple layers stacked vertically and multiple domains spread horizontally. At one time, ASCII was enough, now we have to deal with Unicode.
Software becoming worthless will mean that everyone has learned the rules of the systems we created and capable of creating systems with good enough quality. I'm not seeing that happens anytime soon.
Software is just means to an end. Data and data transformation is what people want. Software has sellable dollar value only because creating the software to do the data transformation has had real associated cost. I.e anyone who wanted a particular data transformation had to pay to get the software that does it.
When you drive down that cost you drive down the potential value of the software products. Remember that what is a cost to one party is revenue to the other party. Without revenue there cannot be profit and without revenue software has no dollar value.
If anyone can create "photoshop" with minimal cost and there are thousands of said "photoshop" apps what will be the retail sell value of those apps. Close to zero.
This same lifecycle already happened with games. Driving down the cost of producing games resulted in a proliferation of games that are mostly worthless that you can't even give away.
> Software is just means to an end. Data and data transformation is what people want. Software has sellable dollar value only because creating the software to do the data transformation has had real associated cost. I.e anyone who wanted a particular data transformation had to pay to get the software that does it.
I do agree with you on that point.
> If anyone can create "photoshop" with minimal cost and there are thousands of said "photoshop" apps what will be the retail sell value of those apps. Close to zero.
This is the point that I cannot agree with. Not anyone can create photoshop because of the amount of knowledge you need about the data and transformations that needs to be applied to get a specific result. And then make a coherent system around it. You can create isolated function just fine, just like a lot of people knows how to build a shed with planks and nails. But even when given all the materials and tools, only a few can build a skyscraper or a mansion.
That knowledge of how to create a coherent systems that does something well is the real cost of software. Producing code isn't it.
You're right and I agree with you to an extent. Also as of now the tools aren't quite intelligent enough for one to produce software of that complexity without having someone competent at the helm.
That being said what already exists was already enough to shutter the stock prices of many software companies precisely because the fear is that their clients will just re-create the software themselves instead of buying it from someone else.
I guess we'll see how this will pan out in the next few years.
Yes it become much easier to fail fast and iterate, but also a lot of these fail fast projects are trivial for anyone to implement themselves. Differentiating your project is going to be tougher too.
A lot of the moats are gone, but quality (and security) is in a nose dive. AI built project might be the Ikea furniture. Good for the masses, but there's still a market (much smaller) for well crafted applications and services. It's hard to say what it'll look like in a couples years though. Maybe even the crafting is eventually gone. /shrug
I think we need to change our perspective of what success is. I believe there will be a ton of small companies popping up instead of a few big ones that eats everyone's lunch. Like Google, Microsoft and others giants have done until now.
But the total market size (in number of products) also multiplied. For instance, as a relatively tiny example, I create a nutrition tracker. There's hundreds already out there, but they never met my specific desire for one. So I created one with Claude (took maybe 2 hours total over a few days) that completely matches my desire, plus I can tweak it as want for my needs.
No one else will want this specific piece of software. But I love it.
Sure, there will be 100x the competition, but there will be also 100x the software needs. Now, if you want to get crazy rich building software, that does get tougher, but that's a good thing, I think.
Are most side projects in competition? I wouldn't think so.
Even if they were I disagree that 10x more ideas being produced means 10x more products in competition. You could leverage AI to execute but still have terrible ideas, leadership, product stewardship etc.
I think some clever people with a real and valuable insight will finally be able to turn that insight into a product. I also think the other 9 products will be get rich quick attempts by people with nothing to offer.
If the competition just grew by 100x, where's all the great, high-quality, AI-vibe coded side products? Something just isn't adding up here. Could it be that vibe coding on its own just isn't all that useful, and most of those 10% are wasting their time?
The counterpoint is that it's only 2 months since AI got really useful and it will presumably continue to improve. It takes a while until it spreads through the society.
I can relate. Sincerely debating whether I quit my well-paying and comfortable corporate job and just go full-time entrepreneur before the opportunities disappear.
The game is all about content now. Forget software. Games, movies, books, music, etc. Things that people will always want regardless of how much there already is. Look at the success of AI slop authors and YouTube channels. That's our future.
