←back to thread

The case against conversational interfaces

(julian.digital)
279 points nnx | 4 comments | 01 Apr 25 02:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.675s | source
Show context
techpineapple ◴[01 Apr 25 02:33 UTC] No.43542252[source]▶
There’s an interesting… paradox? Observation? That up until 20-30 years ago, humans were not computerized beings. I remember a thought leader at a company I worked at said that the future was wearable computing, a computer that disappears from your knowing and just integrates with your life. And that sounds great and human and has a very thought leadery sense of being forward thinking.

But I think it’s wrong? Ever since the invention of the television, we’ve been absolutely addicted to screens. Screens and remotes, and I think there’s something sort of anti-humanly human about it. Maybe we don’t want to be human? But people I think would generally much rather tap their thumb on the remote than talk to their tv, and a visual interface you hold in the palm of your hand is not going away any time soon.

replies(5): >>43542479 #>>43542490 #>>43542517 #>>43542785 #>>43543132 #
neom ◴[01 Apr 25 03:20 UTC] No.43542490[source]▶
I went through Waldorf education and although Rudolf Steiner is quite eccentric, one thing I think he was spot on about was regarding WHEN you introduce technology. He believed that introducing technology or mechanized thinking too early in childhood would hinder imaginative, emotional, and spiritual development. He emphasized that children should engage primarily with natural materials, imaginative play, storytelling, artistic activities, and movement, as opposed to being exposed prematurely to mechanical devices or highly structured thinking, I seem to recall he recommended this till the age of 6.

My parents did this with me, no screens till 6 (wasn't so hard as I grew up in the early 90s, but still, no TV). I notice too how much people love screens, that non-judgmental glow of mental stimulation, it's wonderful, however I do think it's easier to "switch off" when you spent the first period of your life fully tuned in to the natural world. I hope folks are able to do this for their kids, it seems it would be quite difficult with all the noise in the world. Given it was hard for mine during the era of CRT and 4 channels, I have empathy for parents of today.

replies(3): >>43542651 #>>43542845 #>>43542989 #
anthk ◴[01 Apr 25 04:56 UTC] No.43542989[source]▶
Wasn't Waldorf a cult?
replies(2): >>43543102 #>>43544642 #
1. Foobar8568 ◴[01 Apr 25 05:20 UTC] No.43543102[source]▶
It is, packed of pseudosciences, which we still suffer today.

In Switzerland, we get often measle outbreaks thanks to his cult.

replies(1): >>43543193 #
2. neom ◴[01 Apr 25 05:37 UTC] No.43543193[source]▶
Well, how folks view the philosophy can be multifaceted, so I'll leave the pseudoscience and cult part aside. On the measles, Steiner was certainly skeptical of vaccination, but I think in Switzerland you have a cultural issue with vaccination. The Waldorf school I went to in Canada, everyone had a measles vaccine, but I do recall a Swiss student coming to our distinctively not Waldorf high school and there being a huge song and dance about their vaccination status, I think as a society generally...you've got some problems there?
replies(2): >>43543535 #>>43543927 #
3. ithkuil ◴[01 Apr 25 06:40 UTC] No.43543535[source]▶
When societies get advanced enough that all the basic needs are covered, a new generation arises where people think we can go back to a simpler past and ditch all that ugly gray industrial scientific technocratic globalistic etc etc ( add more scary qualifiers ) things that are perceived to be the the reason why things are bad and never ever concede that these things play an important role in enabling the safe environment where those very thoughts can be entertained.

The hedonic treadmill is driving the world

4. f1shy ◴[01 Apr 25 07:40 UTC] No.43543927[source]▶
It is pseudoscience, as they speak as if it was science (made categorical affirmations of what is better and worst for the education), but there is not science behind it. The cult is more controversial. But as long as people believe something that is not scientifically backed, for me at least, that is what I call religion.