a16z Podcast - Ryo Lu (Cursor): AI Turns Designers to Developers

Episode Date: December 16, 2025

Ryo Lu spent years watching his designs die in meetings. Then he discovered the tool that lets designers ship code at the speed of thought: Cursor, the company where Ryo is now Head of Design. In this episode, a16z General Partner Jennifer Li sits down with Ryo to discuss why "taste" is the wrong framework for understanding the future, why purposeful apps are "selfish," how System 7 holds secrets about AI interfaces, and the radical bet that one codebase can serve everyone if you design the concepts right instead of the buttons. Timecodes:00:01:45 - Design Becomes Approachable to Everyone00:02:36 - From Years to Minutes: Product Feedback Loops Collapse00:07:54 - "Each role used their own tool...their own lingo"00:13:15 - "If you don't have an opinion, you’ll get AI slop"00:17:18 - The Lost Art of Being a Complete Builder00:21:42 - Design Is Not About Aesthetics00:28:57 - User-Centric vs System-Centric Philosophy00:34:00 - AI as Universal Interface, Not Chat Box00:38:42 - "Simplicity is the Biggest Constraint"00:43:42 - "I Don't Sit in Figma All Day Making Mocks"00:46:33 - RyoOS: Building A Personal Operating System00:48:45 - "We've been doing the same thing since 1984" Resources:Follow Ryo Lu on X: https://x.com/ryolu_Follow Jennifer Li on X: https://x.com/JenniferHliFollow Erik Torenberg on X: https://x.com/eriktorenberg Stay Updated:If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends!  Find a16z on X: https://x.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zListen to the a16z Podcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5bC65RDvs3oxnLyqqvkUYXListen to the a16z Podcast on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a16z-podcast/id842818711Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Stay Updated:Find a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Over the last, I don't know, 15 years or so, the art of making software fragmented a lot, and then we kind of split into different roles. Each role kind of use their own tool, use their own artifact. They think in their own kind of words and lingo. With cursor, things kind of flip again. For the first time, that design is such an approachable concept and skill set to a lot more people. And it brings together sort of people who have aspirations for design and wanting to build things, wanting to prototype things,

putting beautiful stuff out in the world. There needs to be something for the human to specify what is good, what is right, how I want to do it. If you don't put in that opinion, it will just produce AI slot. People will always have their strength for their unique special skill. I see AI almost like, it's almost like a universal interface.

So design is kind of like trying to figure out what is the best configuration and the simplest state for all of us. The beauty is actually putting things all together. What happens when the designer becomes the developer? When mockups that used to die in Figma can suddenly become living products in minutes. My guests today are Jennifer Lee, general partner at A16Z and Rio Lou, head of design at Cursor, the AI code editor that's collapsing the traditional boundaries between design and engineering. Rio spent years at Notion and Asana, watching his designs get stuck in endless meetings and handoffs.

Now he's building tools that let designers ship real software themselves. We're exploring how AI is ending the era of fragmented teams, why taste isn't really worth talking about, and what it means when a single person could do what used to take an entire product team. Rio, welcome to the AISNC podcast. Jennifer, you've been thinking a lot about sort of evolution of design, sort of as it relates to infrared as well as software development. Why don't you talk about what got you so excited about having Rio and, you know,

what I have this conversation? Rio and I got to know each other over the past few months talking about how large language models and AI tools are going to impact not just designers, design engineers, and how people are building prototypes and coming up with great ideas. I feel like for the first time that design is such an approachable concept and skill set to a lot more people, and it brings together sort of people who have aspirations for design and wanting to build things, wanting to prototype things, putting beautiful stuff out in the world much, much easier and faster.

So Rio has gone through a lot of thinking and journey of, you know, what design means, what design means in the sense of having cursor being part of, like, the building blocks of it. Like, I just really wanted to have him on the podcast and talk about the future of both coding and design. Rio you've been at Notion now obviously I have a design cursor. Why don't you take us through your journey

and how you've been thinking about some of these topics? I think to me, it's like building software there's like so many layers of abstractions and depth that you need to take care of and in order to do something really great

you actually need to know everything or like you assemble a team. that works really well together with you know people with different strengths on every layer maybe you have the greatest infer engineers people doing ML maybe you have you know really good design engineers who really like they can just handwrite CSS and then they'll be like perfect in order for say one person to do all of this or learn all of this it takes a long time of trial and error you have to build from the simplest things to

gradually more complex skill it up to more people share your workout to the public see what happens do this feedback loop and if you're doing it in a team sometimes it takes even longer because say you're just a designer

you're doing some mox in Figma and then you shared it out you got some feedback then your PM needs to do this like PRD thing and then run more meetings and then there's like more people involved and then they're like

and it takes a long time and then maybe like a year later your design came out but then it's like 20% of what you wanted but with this new thing so with cursor you can just say you have an idea

it might be a little ambiguous you just tell it to tell the agent And then it might give you something maybe like 60%, 70% on the first shot. But you kind of skipped a lot of the complexities. We kind of transformed from like you need to understand all this thing, all these concepts of making software. Then you can do something to I can do something now.

And then I might get something that's maybe imperfect, not exactly what I want. But the process of iterating and like kind of poking at it becomes really quick. And then as the agents evolve, as the models get better, as it talks to more tools, it understands visuals better, it can talk to Figma, the mocks that I had. It can talk to Notion, all the, you know, ideas, the dogs, the meeting knows. anything. And the most important thing is it knows the code base, which is the truth, the material of how we, you know, build software.

So that kind of changes the whole thing. It's like the tool not only, you know, impacts the individual software engineers. Like for them, maybe like for cursors, like we kind of try to fit as many workflows and people as we can say there's like people who they pride themselves that like you know really think thoroughly write the most clean code

for those people they can just type and then we do the tab thing and the tab thing got really good at like it's almost like it knows what you want to do next so for those people they can do that but there's like increasingly more people doing the agents where

like even for the most professional coders, they start to do those new things. Yeah. Yeah. I am trying to think of even myself as an example prior to joining the firm. I was on the product side. I was working with a lot of designing, designers, design engineering teams. Back then, it wasn't called that way. It's more like designers, front-end engineers, and then UX designers too.

It was still a very disjointed workflow. It was like, you know, a lot of the design work happens more in isolated fashion with just the designers themselves. Like they spent two weeks coming up with a concept. Yeah. What does the UI look like and work with design, UX designers on what the UX look like? And then hand it off to the product team and works with engineers. Figma already bring that sort of process a lot closer that you can collaborate around one artifact that everybody can give inputs and prototype. and bring sort of more of a close to the reality artifacts into these people's hands.

Where with Cursor, it's even one step closer is you can actually poke around and play with these artifacts that are functional and working. I'm curious, what does it mean for collaboration among these teams? as you're mentioning the collapse of that iteration and the speed. And also what does it mean for the different roles that's involved in design? Yes. So I think maybe like over the last, I don't know, 15 years or so, I think the art of making software fragmented a lot. And then we kind of split into different roles.

each role kind of use their own tool use their own artifact they think in their own kind of words and lingo say the designers are stuck in Figma before maybe it's like sketch there were actually like you know files and then the PMS maybe they're like just writing docs and running meetings

and maybe they're in Google docs and say the data people maybe like you know some other tool and then everyone's like kind of siloed in their own way and then we need to kind of come up with the process to tie everything or like build better tools to kind of unify

everything. We tried that at notion but the problem is like people have like already developed like so much like habits there's like inertia to kind of change that or like

change people's tools or like kind of like you can really force anyone to like adopt something new that doesn't perfectly fit them but with

AI with cursor things kind of flip again because we want to kind of build something where it can kind of connect and absorb all of these artifacts and formats

and later maybe even like within cursor like there could be different views of the same code like showing the code as raw code or like as diffs it's almost like just the very beginning

the act of making software is really just modifying the code like in some sense like the PM writing the PRD is modifying the code but they're doing it through a more passive like organizational way

maybe the designers influence and more individuals. But when you do this, you know, there's so much like back and forth collaboration issues. As you grow the team, it gets even more complex. People start like breaking the software apart. Things are no longer simple, no longer unified. Like we always talk about like you kind of ship your work chart type of thing. And then the different roles kind of fight.

like designers are right, the engineers are right, the PMs are right. But like, you know, there's the shared truth, which is the code where like, you know, you can also gather a lot of information around

putting everything, synthesizing everything together. Then the agent can kind of handle all these things that you might actually not know fully, but it kind of, you know, knows the truth. It could know the presence, which is maybe, like, you know, what's in your code base, what are the actual, you know, running tasks or projects, even gathering feedback or information

from the real world. It could be also, like, you know, from the past, say, like, all the knowledge that you've accumulated, your team preferences, your, like, how the code base evolved in goods, maybe. There's also the future, which is, like, say, you're planning ahead, you're, like, like thinking about the division, you're maybe like ideating some like bigger ideas. You can actually do all of this with just one tool, one agent. But in mind, you know, for each individual user or team, it might take a different shape.

And then like what we want is like there's like a base experience that almost works for anyone, anything. But you can get more specific if you know what you're doing or if you have specific. specific needs, you can even maybe, you know, use cursor as if you were using Figma at some point in the future. But the differences, you are not interacting with these siloed apps with their own, like, formats. And then you don't have to do the conversion manually with meetings or whatever. Like, it just does it.

Then all you need to do is you're kind of thinking about the idea, you're like iterating on it in whatever way that is the best for you. For the, for the engineer, it might be like a code editor, but maybe for a designer as something more visual. For the PM, it might be something more like a document. That makes sense. I'm curious, given that there's a lot more focus and emphasis on this concept of taste after AI comes about.

And now there's also this coworker that's an agent. helping with writing code, designing elements of the product. Where would the taste live? Where does that come from? Can you rely on agents for having good taste? Is I still heavily reliant on the creator as the human designer or developer? I don't really like people talking about taste as a word. Why is that?

Because I think it's so ambiguous. Like how I see it as more like, I think taste. This is kind of, like there's a part of, like you're selecting out of, you know, all the options. But in order to do that, you have to kind of see everything. Or like you have seen it. You have maybe dug into the past. You have kind of figured out, oh, these are the ways people did this kind of thing. You made a connection of, you know, some stuff from the past where you've seen in nature.

where, I don't know, some human made it or nature made it. And then you kind of connect with that to your thing or the thing you want to do. Or you kind of, over time, develop like a preference. It's almost like you're self-selecting a boundary of this is what is right. This is what is beautiful. This is what is good. And I think it's very different for each.

person. There is no right. There is no wrong. It's more dependent on, say, like, the things that you've seen. It's almost like an LLM. But the problem with an LLM is like it actually has seen everything. And it doesn't really have an opinion. Or like, it kind of confused itself thinking that people prefer purple gradients everywhere. But what is good is like the element, because it has seen a lot of things, it can do the baseline really fast and really good. Then the thing on top is taste, or like your self-selection of what is good. Like you're kind of drawing the boundary. That is your decision.

Though the AI can increasingly help you do that. Say we have a new thing in cursor called plan mode. If you type in the prompt and then you don't really want to fill in the details, you can switch to plan, go. It will kind of just build the spec for you. And then you can add details. You can change it as you want. Yeah.

But it's almost like I don't really believe in, say, you give the age and something long running or like it's really like occluded, like a really non-specific prompt and then expected to give you exactly what you want. Like, it's just not going to work. There needs to be something for the human to specify what is good, what is right,

how I want to do it. If you don't put in that opinion, it will just produce AI slop. Yeah. You were alluding earlier to this sort of, you know, fight between product managers, designers, and engineers to sort of dance. And if you were saying a few years ago,

the categories were so much different. As there is this blurring, how do you think these categories will evolve with you? I think people will always have their strength or their unique special skill or some spike. Say like some people are more good. at coordinating. Some people are good

at the visual space. Some people are maybe good at architecting like, you know, the lower level constructs. But I think of all of these people

as just like like their software builders or makers. Like we kind of started there. Like if you look back when

it's like the early computing era, there was no title or people were maybe like researchers who are like but they may be designed

the low level architecture they maybe even you know built the UI and how to display the UI on the screen and the whole thing maybe one person

or two or five and when you did that and also I think back then there were like less say economic constraints where they were funded and they weren't like

trying to make money as much So they kind of made the whole thing really whole. And now it's like you kind of break everything down. You try to optimize them with like processes and cause optimizations. And people have become like, you know, boxed into little areas and problem sets when the whole thing is actually all together. And that causes a lot of problems, I think. Like people now make software that, I don't know.

Like they don't even think of, like, like there's some like ideal that's kind of lost and people think too much on the technical problems, the design problems, the money problems. Not the whole thing. or what we're trying to make better for people. But, you know, we're kind of going backwards now as, you know, they say tools like cursor.

If you were, you know, self-identified as a designer or developer or something. Like I used to also struggle with this. I started like making stuff myself the whole thing. And then I came to the U.S. I got a job titled Project. designer. I stopped coding. I made mocks and

prototypes and I waited for them to happen for like years and they don't happen or like they ended up shipping as like a YouTube video. That's crazy. But you know with this new tool a designer can build.

They can actually like you know work on their craft the stuff that they really care about make that really good, and let the rest, you know, be handled by the agents. They can, you know, kind of put their taste on top. And all the stuff that they don't want to worry about, give it to the agents. But you can also assemble, like, a really good team. So, like, there's, like, really good infer engineers, front of engineers,

PMs who are, like, I don't know, not just, running meetings, get all of them together, give them the same tool, the same code base. They can start covering each other's, like, you know, weaknesses, and then amplify their strength, and the agent kind of holds everything. And, you know, instead of you pinging this guy, ah, where is your design? It knows. Yeah, that resolves a lot of the common conflicts of spending more effort. on the functional part of the software

or spending more time on the artistic, aesthetic side of the product itself and being appealing to the users. And you have worked at many of the very design-focused design-centric companies from Notion to even prior to that Asana, like now given sort of the democratization of who can touch that external facing

aesthetic part of the product, how do you think about influencing even, I guess, your current team and people at Cursor to spend more effort in thinking about that versus just the functional part of the product itself? Yeah. Yeah, one thing I want to call out is

design is not just about aesthetics. It is actually, like, how I think of it is, like, it's all, it actually includes all to say the architectural designs where like all the concepts of what this thing is or like the company even. Say for Notion as an example,

notion is a pure conceptual product, meaning every single concept was designed by a person. So like in Notion, it is really just blocks pages, databases, the workspace, and then everything kind of, works around these concepts and then at every layer there's like a representation of them there could be like you know at the very top it's like the UI or like the brand or like

the visuals the aesthetics but then there's actually the aesthetics every layer how you architect say like the front end code and architecture how they you know how the reactive stays sync and how you render stuff to like how do you like store these objects how they you know relate to each other to all the or concepts of the thing. And if you look at software, it's actually really simple if you look at the concepts

themselves. So design is kind of like trying to figure out what is the best configuration and the simplest state for all of this. Some people maybe only focus on the visuals or the interactions were certain slices. But I think the beauty is actually putting things all together.

as well as you can so I think it is really about what I just talked about is like not seeing design as just should we use a six pixel border radius or four but it's rather

like how do I design the most simple system few as number of concepts few as code path to do the most things for most people. You guys obviously have

incredible product market fit with developers. We've alluded to a bunch of it, but can you share more about maybe either how you guys have navigated the idea of maize of how you want to serve designers

or just more around what kind of tooling you think there's an opportunity to provide? Yeah. So I think Cursor is still

like our primary focus is on professional professional developers and teams. But because of that, people around them are already here. And I think for the longest time, we've been actually intentionally making cursor pretty hard to get in

for, say, the non-technical people. But they're here now, and they actually struggle to get in and they really want to get in. One example is when you open up cursor there's like three buttons that says open projects

connect to SSH clone repo or something as a beginner or like a non-technical person I can't understand any of this but what I'd say like we just kind of give you the agent view blank you can just start doing things

like there's a lot of little things we can kind of fix to just make cursor feel more friendly and welcoming for these people who are like kind of injidjacent people who are maybe they know software concepts or certain layers

but they might not be able to code I want to make sure that when they come in they can like without feeling overwhelmed or like feeling like ah this is like a code editor it's an IDE it is more like I can start doing things and as I start doing things I can maybe like pick the paths that I prefer so like a designer maybe maybe they're just like kind of chatting with the browser next to it as the agent is like making edits they can kind of preview the changes they can maybe like

tracking the browser, pick this element, change, like, ah, I want to swap this with something else, and then boom, it happens. So how we do it is not, say, creating new products or splitting cursor. That is the same thing, but just like different pre-configurations and packaging of the same thing. Because, like, kind of like what I just said, like thinking about the concepts, like cursor itself is actually really simple or like AI agents

in general are pretty simple what you want to do is actually like not like if you look at I don't know like a chat GPT agent versus like a cursor versus like a replant of V0 a notion agent even the architecture or how they work

or like they're almost the same So what if we can come up with a set of universal shared concepts for interacting with AI, with agents, with code, with software? But you can kind of mutate each one to fit more people and to fit more use cases. And then each of them can leverage, say, the best model to do this UI thing with the best view that fits me. I can configure it however I want.

If I want to see everything, I can. If I don't want to see anything, I can too. This leads to my question of over the last few years, and I don't know if it's a few years or a decade, there is the concept of purpose-built tools for certain persona, whether it's web flow for persona or use cases, like for landing pages, for cell v0 for more of the, you know, front-end developers building NextJS apps.

There's tools for designers. There are tools run off from design to engineering. Where now there's more of a concept of the everything app. ChatDBT is kind of everything app. Notion is kind of everything app. You can go to it for your not taking, but I can also publish Notion pages. Curse is becoming more of an everything app. Is that a path that we're going down towards of having these all-encompassing apps

that can do a lot more things that used to be captured by a single-purpose app? Is there still a place for purpose-built tools for a specific use case or persona? How do you see that dynamic? I think it's just like different philosophies of doing things and making software. I think there's like almost like two ways you can look at the thing. There is this, like, the user-centric human-centered design path, which is, you know, you start from a problem. You identify the group of people who have this problem,

figure out, you know, what they want, build really specific solutions for them, versus, like, there's the more system angle to think about things, where you're just kind of looking at the software itself, how it is composed, and then think about, hmm, where do I tweak a little bit to satisfy this constraint or to make this use case work or to enable this tool to work for these people?

I think it's like fundamentally two different philosophies. And then I think it is much easier to do the, say, the user-centric way but it kind of limits you from the beginning because when you start building these specific solutions they only work for those specific people if you want to grow the people or you want to grow the use cases you actually need to kind of tear apart

everything you have your core concepts and a lot of people just can't do that So what they do is, instead of doing that, they add more things, more concepts, more features. And then there will be a point where this thing no longer serves your initial group of people anymore. The simple thing is no longer simple. The purposeful thing is no longer simple. And all of these purposeful apps, they're kind of selfish. They are siloing people, siloing workflows for a file formats.

creating islands when if you look at the thing like all these purposeful app whatever i also work at asana asana the core concepts are really tasks and projects everything around tasks and projects everything they add needs to work with those and that naturally limits what it can do versus say like notion like how we see notion it is not note-taking. It is disguised as note-taking. Like you come in, you can start from a blank page, you can type. But then what you're doing is actually like, you know, blog pages, databases, and the workspace. Each block is almost like a JSON objects.

A page is just an array of JSON objects. And then we render each block in the, you know, the layout and the type it is. And then you can put them in a database. Now they have, you know, more properties, they share more stuff. There's more hierarchy. And all pages can nest each other. That is notion. But then you can do whatever with it. You can have a task project database.

They all work together. They can be a list. They can be a board. Do whatever you want. But then the problem is, you know, for these more universal type of apps, it's like, because it's so open-knitted, it's kind of hard to get started. if I don't have the patience to kind of figure out

how it works, I might not even get to the test and projects. So there's always that tension. But it is fixable. You can build better packaging. You can use AI. So I think

there's just like my personal preferences, I would try to build something that works better for everyone than just, ah, these people are the people we care about. I don't care about everything else. And then I think they should use my thing.

That's not how you do it. We talk about AI. We talk about agents. And we talk about how it really speeds up building things and prototyping. But when it really comes to these type of, you know, helping users to understand the product better onboarding, learning the new concepts. Also to you as a designer-eat-lead leader, how does interacting with AI really improves the usability, utility of the products?

Yeah, I see AI almost like it's almost like a universal interface. And then the bare minimum of it is really just, prompt and then you get some response. Then you can kind of put this into like different forms. It could be like a little input, like a chat box. It could be

like a sidebar, you know, you see the chat. It could be maybe you select something. You can do stuff with it. But it could also say like you completely transform this layer. It's not chat. It's not like an input. It's more fitted to

say it's more purposeful. even. But underneath, it is still the same thing. It is still the same AI, same age, and same architecture, same, like, you can flip different models and prompts and stuff, but then fundamentally, that is what it is. But because of that, you can actually build a lot of different layers and shapes. Then each person can find the shape that fits them, and it will feel more comfortable. But also there's always this like baseline thing, which is, it's just, it's almost like Google.

Like chat GPT is just a box. You can actually put whatever. But there will be more specific tools that fit each person or each use case better. Does every software from now on becomes a chat box to begin with? And what's the row of UX design plays in that? Yeah. I think, like imagine there is only chat. I think that will also be like a really bad experience

because you stare at a blank input, you need to do something. You need to initiate the thing. You need to ask the right questions, put in the right prompt. You might not know what kind of response you will get unless you play with this thing a lot as a new person maybe like you know they might try it the first time

they get something that doesn't feel like what they wanted and they're like this is not for me this is bad but I think there's there's so much potential where like I think the models today

can already do so much stuff for a lot of people for a lot of use cases we need to kind of design a mechanism to kind of help transform that input-output into the form or format or views or workflows of the people today get them through that thing to hear instead of like forcing people to be ah now you need to use this tool and then you actually don't know how it connects with your current

workflow you need to figure it out you don't really know how it works it feels kind of scary what do I do you know versus like you actually ease them in through the thing they are used to and I think

those are actually the more optimal form factors for say the individual person or the use case itself because I know like I just don't want to like typing a question every time

or give me like this wall of text of text response I need to like read versus say, like, you know, the lines that your auto-complete just appears, you just press tab. Or like maybe I just select some element in my art board and say, ah, make four variants of it, and boom, it's there. But underneath it's the same thing.

On this question, I have one more thought is when thinking about creativity, a lot of times when you have more constraints and more guardrails, it's actually more of a friend to bring to creativity than not, whereas now we have a much more open-ended world. We have a much more capable tool that we can explore a lot more unconstrained domain and fashions. How do you still try to apply constraint, I guess, in your line of work?

And how do you think the software itself now that we have this open chat window and chat box that can still bring that constraints in to give the builders more inspirations and creativity. Yeah. I think the biggest constraint is it's kind of like

simplicity in a sense meaning like there's a limit of how much concepts where things you can expose to any given individual at any given time for them to kind of figure things out so there is a natural constraint

on that side for example like on the cognitive side there's maybe like a constraint on space So like cursor, the window, you can stretch it like this What if it's like this? Then you start reducing things where you're kind of like prioritizing what to show what is the most important.

And then those things actually don't change that much or like it is really important to figure those things out. And then you can kind of build a mechanism where you can kind of accommodate more things. say like there's secondary level things that maybe some people want to do maybe it's like more specific modes of operations

where parts of the workflow maybe it is like for different kinds of individual or preferences but they are still like kind of layers of the core concepts where things

they're not kind of put linearly like additive throw out all at you at once and I think the interface where

how software manifests themselves or how we design it even it will start becoming less about say the designer decides these are the buttons where they are

and then it's like a fixed thing but rather it's like there's like shared concepts and shared mechanisms of the same thing. But I could say take different forms where you can kind of expose ways for people to customize and make them their own. Then it's like the designer, what they're really thinking about is like what are the most important concepts, how do they relate to each other at every layer, say like for 80,

percent of people the defaults, what should they be, what should be the simplest state of this app or this thing? What is the default for maybe like you can start forking it for different people and then it's like maybe at the second layer there's like you start exposing more like the power user features or the different archetypes of what you can do. But the default should still stay simple. And then the ideal is, like a lot of the tools, they don't really tell you what's going on or how the things work. One example is, like, you know, most of the CLI coding agents today is like they kind of force you to use this tiny little window with this tiny prompt. That's almost like all the interactions you can do. And then you're kind of delegating

everything to the agent. You don't really know how things work versus for cursor is like if you prefer something minimal I think it's fine you can do that but you can start digging into more things you can customize the agent you can make your own custom mode with like different model preferences and which tools I want which prompts I want you can pick like maybe like instead of viewing just code I want like a preview I want like a dog thing I want a browser thing I can change all the colors like it's all up to you I can prefer the keyboard

I can prefer the mouse and then the designers what they're really doing is they're thinking of what is the minimal set of abstractions the system to kind of handle all of these permutations

I love that concept of you're not just seeing the tool itself as a tool but it's actually a toolbox where you can customize and configure it to fit your purpose and build your own tool that fits your workflow and give a ton of flexibility to the end user. That's sort of the ESOS of cursor and notion.

The more you unpack from the beginning, there's more to come. There's more to play and tinker. Right. Because I think there's a lot of us who are actually really into that kind of stuff. For sure. Real, you have an impeccable taste and sense of design. I'm very curious on your day-to-day life, how do you cultivate the surrounding environments, your own surroundings,

to continue to find inspirations and bring the best design out to the world? Are there things you do, practices you want to share with the audience? I don't really have like a routine or like a kind of sporadic. Like, I don't sit in figma all day and making mocks. I like... It's like doing everything at once type of vibe. So, like, I might be thinking about a, like, longer problem. I would maybe, like, just write.

I like writing and kind of thinking in bullets. I would like go out of the office on a walk and then take my phone with like a notion page and I'll just start writing. I'll make sketches. I'll maybe play individual space. I'll maybe like, you know, build a prototype and code. a lot of my inspirations come from it's like not forcing it

and kind of leaving some blank space to let things simmer a lot of it comes from like just looking at stuff or looking at everything not just software so like you can look at print design graphic design motion films music art anything that humans made the nature side of things are really cool too like learning about natural systems i i have a bio measure so like there's a lot of similarities and like you know

how many layers of things you can build how they interact with each other um looking at the past helps a lot. So, like, my Rio OS project kind of started from, like, last year, I was just, like, I bought a bunch of old Macs and iPods, and I was just playing with them. And I wanted to kind of recreate the feelings. I actually really want to ask about that, because a lot of, you know, designers' profile page has the most shiny, forward-looking, futuristic designs where you have, like, I don't know which year it is,

like a MacOS interface with, like, the original version of iPod icon. Yeah. Yeah. Tell us more about the real-OS project. Yeah, I started the thing from, so I was leaving Notion, and I make noises when I am in meetings. So like, oh, no. where it's all the same thing, stuff like that.

And I wanted to make them a little gift. So I built like a soundboard app with Cursor. It was just one app. Like it looked like really bad. Like tell when default styles. And then I just said, what if we like made it more like retro Mac OSE? And then it put it in like a almost like a more retro.

macOS type window basically like put it in the box and then I'm like add a menu bar and then it added it on top then I'm like now I have a menu bar

and a window why not just make more apps and more windows and then that's how it kind of started and then I just couldn't stop for like I don't know for three months yeah

but a lot of the interfaces that I created I started from, it's kind of inspired from System 7. There is accuracy, but also, like, I added some, like, future stuff in it. And then I actually made, like, more themes. I added, like, a macOS 10 theme, like the first Aqua theme. I added, like, Windows 95 and XP. And then if you swap between them and you,

play with the OS, it feels really authentic to each, but then it's actually the same thing. So that's kind of like the message I want to kind of tell people. It's like we've been almost doing the same thing over and over again from the very beginning, but maybe given, you know, the technical constraints of each era, there's like just that's how it ended there and how it ended, how it came to be. But we kind of carried a lot of these concepts and patterns over to even now. And then we were actually still living in it. And I don't think things will change that much.

Meaning there is these like timeless things that don't change much. And like it kind of all comes. back to people were trying to come up with some really familiar ideas and then bringing them to like a new medium. But we're doing the same thing again. Back in 1984 and now, like people are just, I don't know, using paint to draw some pictures. There's like a text editor you can type some stuff. There's like a, you know, different concepts.

we put in little pictures, the icons, the desktop, like none of that really changed. Yeah, the timeless concepts and software we're using is the browser, the player, the chat windows, and those are all on the real OS project. So for the audience, want to check it out, it's at real.l.l.l. Yes, os.r.reo.l.O.0.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O.O. dot lu. Awesome. We're up there. Thank you so much, Real, for coming. This is awesome. the content here is for informational purposes only. Should not be taken as legal business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund. Please note that A16Z and its affiliates

may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16Z.com forward slash disclosures.