This sort of program is always such a huge waste of time. The way progress is made is not by carefully studying all the ways something is currently done and then thinking "maybe we make it graphical". This is the sort of thing that happens when there is too much grant money available and no ideas, so they just put 20 mediocre grad students to work. That is just never going to produce anything that is going to resemble in any way what programming will actually look like when it is 'reinvented'.
Let me guess, they published a bunch of papers, did a bunch of experiments like "lets do X but gui" "what if you didn't have to learn syntax" and then nobody ever did anything with any of the work because it was a total dead end.
Look at how progress has moved in the past. It wasn't from some deliberate process. Generally technology improves in some way, and a person with early access to that advance just immediately applies it to some problem.
The instant computers got powerful enough, someone invented assembly.
The instant computers got powerful enough, they invented lisp and C. There wasn't even a gap of a year in most cases from some new capability being available and someone applying it. There wasn't some grand plan, it was just someone playing with a powerful new capability and using it for something.
This happens across all of human activity. The Wright brothers weren't special geniuses, they happened to be working on kites when engines with just enough power/weight ratio became available to keep a kite in the air on it's own power, and they slapped one of those engines on a kite. If they hadn't done it someone else would have done it a month later because once the technology was available, the innovation was obvious.
You don't make leaps from paying grad students to play around with "how can we make programming better", you get it from all of a sudden an AI can just generate code.
Let me guess, they published a bunch of papers, did a bunch of experiments like "lets do X but gui" "what if you didn't have to learn syntax" and then nobody ever did anything with any of the work because it was a total dead end.
Look at how progress has moved in the past. It wasn't from some deliberate process. Generally technology improves in some way, and a person with early access to that advance just immediately applies it to some problem.
The instant computers got powerful enough, someone invented assembly.
The instant computers got powerful enough, they invented lisp and C. There wasn't even a gap of a year in most cases from some new capability being available and someone applying it. There wasn't some grand plan, it was just someone playing with a powerful new capability and using it for something.
This happens across all of human activity. The Wright brothers weren't special geniuses, they happened to be working on kites when engines with just enough power/weight ratio became available to keep a kite in the air on it's own power, and they slapped one of those engines on a kite. If they hadn't done it someone else would have done it a month later because once the technology was available, the innovation was obvious.
You don't make leaps from paying grad students to play around with "how can we make programming better", you get it from all of a sudden an AI can just generate code.