Chat is a bad UI pattern for development tools

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.

Yes, agree. Chatting with a computer has all the worst attributes of talking to a person, without any of the intuitive understanding, nonverbal cues, even tone of voice, that all add meaning when two human beings talk to each other.

That comment made sense 3 years ago. LLMs already solved "intuitive understanding", and the realtime multimodal variants (e.g. the thing behind "Advanced Voice" in ChatGPT app) handle tone of voice in both directions. As for nonverbal cues, I don't know yet - I got live video enabled in ChatGPT only few days ago and didn't have time to test it, but I would be surprised if it couldn't read the basics of body language at this point.

Talking to a computer still sucks as an user interface - not because a computer can't communicate on multiple channels the way people do, as it can do it now too. It sucks for the same reason talking to people sucks as an user interface - because the kind of tasks we use computers for (and that aren't just talking with/to/at other people via electronic means) are better handle by doing than by talking about them. We need an interface to operate a tool, not an interface to an agent that operates a tool for us.

As an example, consider driving (as in, realtime control - not just "getting from point A to B"): a chat interface to driving would suck just as badly as being a backseat driver sucks for both people in the car. In contrast, a steering wheel, instead of being a bandwidth-limiting indirection, is an anti-indirection - not only it lets you control the machine with your body, the control is direct enough that over time your brain learns to abstract it away, and the car becomes an extension of your body. We need more of tangible interfaces like that with computers.

The steering wheel case, of course, would fail with "AI-level smarts" - but that still doesn't mean we should embrace talking to computers. A good analogy is dance - it's an interaction between two independently smart agents exploring an activity together, and as they do it enough, it becomes fluid.

So dance, IMO, is the steering wheel analogy for AI-powered interfaces, and that is the space we need to explore more.

> We need an interface to operate a tool, not an interface to an agent that operates a tool for us.

Excellent comment and it gets to the heart of something I've had trouble clearly articulating: We've slowly lost the concept that a computer is a tool that the user wields and commands to do things. Now, a computer has its own mind and agency, and we "request" it to do things and "communicate" with it, and ask it to run this and don't run that.

Now, we're negotiating and pleading with the man inside of the computer, Mr. Computer, who has its own goals and ambitions that don't necessarily align with your own as a user. It runs what it wants to run, and if that upsets you, user, well tough shit! Instead of waiting for a command and then faithfully executing it, Mr. Computer is off doing whatever the hell he wants, running system applications in the background, updating this and that, sending you notifications, and occasionally asking you for permission to do even more. And here you are as the user, hobbled and increasingly forced to "chat" with it to get it to do what you want.

Even turning your computer off! You used to throw a hardware switch that interrupts the power to the main board, and _sayonara_ Mr. Computer! Now, the switch does nothing but send an impassioned plea to the operating system to pretty please, with sugar on top, when you're not busy could you possibly power off the computer (or mostly power it off, because off doesn't even mean off anymore).

This is a great observation. I've mostly thought of it, not in relation to AI, but in relation to the way Apple and to a lesser extent, Microsoft, act like they are the owners of the computers we "buy." An update will be installed now. Your silly user applications will be closed by force if necessary. System stability depends on it!

The modern OS values the system's theoretical 'system health' metrics far above things like "whether the user can use it to do some user task."

Another great example is how you can't boot a modern Mac laptop, on AC power, until it has decided its battery is sufficiently charged. Why? None of your business.

Anyway to get back on topic, this is an interesting connection you've made, the software vendor will perhaps delegate decisions like "is the user allowed to log into the computer at this time" or "is a reboot mandatory" to an "agent" running on the computer. If we're lucky we'll get to talk to that agent to plead our case, but my guess is Apple and Microsoft will decide we aren't qualified to have input to the decisions.

An example of where this is going is Apple's so-called "System Integrity Protection"[1] which is essentially an access level to system files that's even higher than root. It's Apple arrogantly protecting "their" system from the user, even from the root user:

    System Integrity Protection is designed to allow modification of these protected parts only by processes that are signed by Apple and have special entitlements to write to system files, such as Apple software updates and Apple installers.

Only Apple can be trusted to operate what is supposed to be your computer.

1: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102149