Apparently commenting on the thing is being argumentative. Didn't know that I can't even post my thoughts on a thing. I'll keep that in mind. You say "discuss" but apparently the moment I try to discuss things it's being argumentative.
As for the link, it'd be this.
You didn't comment on the thing you started with :
I don't see why you don't ... XYZ
Which is attacking the messenger not the message. Ad hominen plus in passive tone (passive aggressive). I linked a site you don't like, you made the main point of your post about admonishing me for not linking a source to your liking, not about the actual technology. I responded harshly because you made it a personal directed thing.
Then
"that headline is dubious - it it recreates GUIs, not entire programs"
If you're being pedantic, no-one said "entire programs" and we'd have to determine exactly
what the specific meaning of computer program even is.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/computer-program.html"instructions to a computer telling it to do a particular piece of work"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/computer-programa set of instructions that makes a computer do a particular thing"
Which is exactly what the code for a GUI is doing. If you make a GUI that's functional but has no purpose, it's still a program. Just because you can add more to it to make it more "complete" for some specific purpose, that doesn't make the plain GUI any less of a complete program at doing
it's purpose - even if that purpose is just to have buttons clicked on and respond visually. That's just as much a complete program as Hello World. The fact that the GUI can't exist outside of it's OS / graphics framework doesn't make it any less of a real program. All programs rely heavily on the existence of frameworks for their operation.
"Looks rather nifty, but I'm not exactly sure of its use Given that with modern IDEs, developing GUIs is as simple as a drag-and-drop procedure,"
Also completely irrelevant. It's an advance in technique, which could be applied to multiple tasks. The fact that a human can already do that task using a manual process isn't a relevant criticism of an AI advance. Humans could already play chess, or any of many other things AIs can now do, that doesn't invalidate the advances.
Still, I'm not exactly sure what problem this tool is trying to solve. Neat demonstration, though.
Any time you might want to automatically generate code from messy data perhaps, which is what NNs are good at filtering out. Hand-coded solutions to deal with complex data which might have noise in the signal isn't very good. Which is why NNs are a thing.
Anyway the argument that you can already get this sort of result from a manual human-operated process is a weak argument to dismiss the potential of any AI advance. How long does manual click and drag take, are there known errors that can crop up when doing that? etc etc? Automatable. I'm pretty certain they can get to the point at which you just give a written description of what a program is
meant to do then AI can in fact create that program for you.