I’m not a traditional developer.
A few months ago, I had a strange idea for a website: a public archive where anyone could leave a message addressed to whatever might exist beyond our known reality.
No accounts, profiles, likes or replies. Each message would simply receive a number and become part of the archive.
I built it by describing what I wanted to Caffeine AI. The application now runs on the Internet Computer, and the first working version came together much faster than I expected.
Then strangers started using it, and building the site stopped being the hardest part.
More than 770 transmissions have now been added.
That forced me to deal with questions the initial build had not prepared me for.
How do you prevent spam without requiring accounts?
How do you create something intended to last while keeping the ability to fix bugs?
How do you make a 3D constellation containing hundreds of transmissions work smoothly on mobile?
How much should you explain before the mystery of the concept disappears?
I also learned that a convincing AI summary is not proof that a feature actually works.
Caffeine could tell me that navigation, performance or validation had been improved, but I still had to test the real behaviour myself.
I started keeping clearer versions, changing one thing at a time and defining the expected result before asking for another modification.
The quality of the output changed significantly when I stopped asking for vague improvements.
“Improve the archive” produced unpredictable decisions.
“The search must use AND logic, ignore capitalization, display 50 results per page and keep the newest entries first” produced something I could actually verify.
The same applied to error messages, character limits, redirects, mobile behaviour, navigation and the way transmissions are numbered.
My biggest lesson is that AI and no-code tools can remove a large part of the implementation barrier, but they do not remove the need for product judgment.
The tool can build the rule you describe.
It cannot decide whether that rule is good, whether it contradicts another rule or whether a technically successful feature damages the original idea.
The project is called Hello Outside:
https://hello-outside.com
Full disclosure: I created the site. Every transmission in the archive was written by a visitor. AI does not generate or modify the messages.
I’m curious about other people building with Caffeine, Lovable, Bubble, FlutterFlow or similar tools.
At what point did you realise that your hardest problem was no longer building the app, but understanding and controlling what the tool had built?