I think "polished" is doing some very heavy lifting in that sentence.

Don't get me wrong: I literally spend every weekday generating web UIs with Claude: I'm not anti-AI at all.

But to claim anything Claude produces as "polished" means limiting yourself to a very narrow definition of that term! If it didn't, people like me wouldn't get paid six figure salaries still (we'd be replaced by the AI that produces "polished" code).

I think the author nailed it with this sentence:

> The audience can be one person.

In the past, the effort it took to make a polished tool was much higher and hardly worth it for one self alone. We've pushed that bar up significantly.

Idk, maybe this is why compared to my peers I don't have much money, or the co-op I founded doesn't generate as much revenue as it probably could, but something just feels icky about it. I don't want to try to stick my head above the water of ten thousand of the same people doing the same thing. The effort to payoff ratio seems broken. I just want to build things, some of which are useful or fun. Maybe I'm too much of a dirty anarchist but it seems a lot more fun to me to make something and give it away for free that someone else is trying to charge for, than to try to monetize everything I do.

But I do wonder what's going to happen to indie game devs and hackers. I suspect that the burn-fast quick ramp up and validation strategy will begin fail, and what will make software worth paying for in the future is software that grew slowly and proved out its usefulness, maintenance, and development cadence over a long period of time. Before, you could validate an idea relatively quickly, maybe now you can just pick a couple ideas, stick to them, and cross your fingers.