As underlying AI models become more capable, the need for complex user interfaces diminishes. The team abandoned feature-rich IDEs like Cursor for Claude Code's simple terminal text box because the model's power now handles the complexity, making a minimal UI more efficient.

Once AI coding agents reach a high performance level, objective benchmarks become less important than a developer's subjective experience. Like a warrior choosing a sword, the best tool is often the one that has the right "feel," writes code in a preferred style, and integrates seamlessly into a human workflow.

Current text-based prompting for AI is a primitive, temporary phase, similar to MS-DOS. The future lies in more intuitive, constrained, and creative interfaces that allow for richer, more visual exploration of a model's latent space, moving beyond just natural language.

The primary interface for managing AI agents won't be simple chat, but sophisticated IDE-like environments for all knowledge workers. This paradigm of "macro delegation, micro-steering" will create new software categories like the "accountant IDE" or "lawyer IDE" for orchestrating complex AI work.

Future coding interfaces will move beyond read-only chat logs. They will treat the AI conversation as an editable 'multi-buffer'—a new type of document that aggregates code snippets from across a project. This will allow developers to directly manipulate code within the conversational flow itself.

As AI writes most of the code, the highest-leverage human activity will shift from reviewing pull requests to reviewing the AI's research and implementation plans. Collaborating on the plan provides a narrative journey of the upcoming changes, allowing for high-level course correction before hundreds of lines of bad code are ever generated.

The next IDE evolution will transform the codebase into a dynamic 'metadata backbone'. By capturing a continuous history of edits and conversations, it will allow all context—discussions, decisions, feedback—to be permanently anchored to specific lines of code, unlike today's static, snapshot-based Git workflows.

It's infeasible for humans to manually review thousands of lines of AI-generated code. The abstraction of review is moving up the stack. Instead of checking syntax, developers will validate high-level plans, two-sentence summaries, and behavioral outcomes in a testing environment.

As AI generates more code, the core engineering task evolves from writing to reviewing. Developers will spend significantly more time evaluating AI-generated code for correctness, style, and reliability, fundamentally changing daily workflows and skill requirements.