←back to thread

858 points cryptophreak | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[] No.42934898[source]
I'm growing to the idea that chat is a bad UI pattern, period. It is a great record of correspondence, I think. But it is a terrible UI for doing anything.

In large, I assert this is because the best way to do something is to do that thing. There can be correspondence around the thing, but the artifacts that you are building are separate things.

You could probably take this further and say that narrative is a terrible way to build things. It can be a great way to communicate them, but being a separate entity, it is not necessarily good at making any artifacts.

replies(17): >>42934997 #>>42935058 #>>42935095 #>>42935264 #>>42935288 #>>42935321 #>>42935532 #>>42935611 #>>42935699 #>>42935732 #>>42935789 #>>42935876 #>>42935938 #>>42936034 #>>42936062 #>>42936284 #>>42939864 #
1. OJFord ◴[] No.42935095[source]
I don't know, I'm in Slack all day with colleagues, I quite like having the additional ChatGPT colleague (even better I can be quite rude/terse in my messages with 'them').

Incidentally I think that's also a good model for how much to trust the output - you might have a colleague who knows enough about X to think they can answer your question, but they're not necessarily right, you don't blindly trust it. You take it as a pointer, or try the suggestion (but not surprised if it turns out it doesn't work), etc.

replies(1): >>42935215 #
2. taeric ◴[] No.42935215[source]
Oh, do not take my comment as a "chat bots shouldn't exist." That is not at all my intent. I just think it is a bad interface for building things that are self contained in the same chat log.