Honestly I love the UI presented: concise, shows all the options, a fantastic summary of the CLI without having to scroll a massive man page or website.
I'd love this for all the super complex CLI tools I need to use, as a visual cheatsheet on where to search in the man page.
This page has a screenshot of the GUI provided for ls: http://toastytech.com/guis/aux3.html
UIs generated in systematic, composable ways emerging naturally from all the plumbing (pipes, option flags, etc) we already have in place.
Just like when books are adapted into movies, the good adaptations are the ones that are better than the sum of their parts (aren't a direct adaptation). Blind, generic composability is in direct contradiction with this. One could argue that it's the scale that determines whether a better integrated or a consistent but generic solution is better, but in this case I think the article very explicitly demonstrates that the latter approach is what loses out.
I have a very strong and persistent disdain towards the many shell incantations I had to come up with, have to keep around as notes, and have to have AI generated. Having to navigate the maze the article calls a GUI would result in much the same.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills seeing people in this thread regarding this visual any good, especially given how even the article author clearly disagrees, hence "why" the article was created in the first place.