←back to thread

279 points nnx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ChuckMcM ◴[] No.43543501[source]
This clearly elucidated a number of things I've tried to explain to people who are so excited about "conversations" with computers. The example I've used (with varying levels of effectiveness) was to get someone to think about driving their car by only talking to it. Not a self driving car that does the driving for you, but telling it things like: turn, accelerate, stop, slow down, speed up, put on the blinker, turn off the blinker, etc. It would be annoying and painful and you couldn't talk to your passenger while you were "driving" because that might make the car do something weird. My point, and I think it was the author's as well, is that you aren't "conversing" with your computer, you are making it do what you want. There are simpler, faster, and more effective ways to do that then to talk at it with natural language.
replies(11): >>43543657 #>>43543721 #>>43543740 #>>43543791 #>>43543890 #>>43544393 #>>43544444 #>>43545239 #>>43546342 #>>43547161 #>>43551139 #
shubhamjain ◴[] No.43543791[source]
I had the same thoughts on conversational interfaces [1]. Humane AI failed not only because of terrible execution, the whole assumption of voice being a superior interface (and trying to invent something beyond smartphones) was flawed.

> Theoretically, saying, “order an Uber to airport” seems like the easiest way to accomplish the task. But is it? What kind of Uber? UberXL, UberGo? There’s a 1.5x surge pricing. Acceptable? Is the pickup point correct? What would be easier, resolving each of those queries through a computer asking questions, or taking a quick look yourself on the app?

> Another example is food ordering. What would you prefer, going through the menu from tens of restaurants yourself or constantly nudging the AI for the desired option? Technological improvement can only help so much here since users themselves don’t clearly know what they want.

[1]: https://shubhamjain.co/2024/04/16/voice-is-bad-ui/

replies(5): >>43543915 #>>43544743 #>>43544877 #>>43544978 #>>43545602 #
1. Propelloni ◴[] No.43544978[source]
> I had the same thoughts on conversational interfaces [1]. Humane AI failed not only because of terrible execution, the whole assumption of voice being a superior interface (and trying to invent something beyond smartphones) was flawed.

Amen to that. I guess, it would help to get of the IT high horse and have a talk with linguists and philosophers of language. They are dealing with this shit for centuries now.