←back to thread

279 points nnx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | 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 #
phyzix5761 ◴[] No.43543740[source]
You're onto something. We've learned to make computers and electronic devices feel like extensions of ourselves. We move our bodies and they do what we expect. Having to switch now to using our voice breaks that connection. Its no longer an extension of ourselves but a thing we interact with.
replies(1): >>43543986 #
namaria ◴[] No.43543986[source]
Two key things that make computers useful, specificity and exactitude, are thrown out of the window by interposing NLP between the person and the computer.

I don't get it at all.

replies(3): >>43544143 #>>43546069 #>>43546495 #
1. brookst ◴[] No.43546069[source]
I also don’t like command like interfaces for all things, but there are cases where they excel, or where they are necessary due to technical constraints. But when the man page for a simple command runs to 10 screens of options I sometimes wonder.