←back to thread

279 points nnx | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
littlestymaar ◴[] No.43544743[source]
Why couldn't the interface ask you about your preferences? Because instead, what we have right now are clunky web interface that just cram every choice in the small screen in front of you and letting you understand how they are in fact different and sort out yourself how to make things work.

Of course a conversational interface is useless if it tries to just do the same thing as a web UI, which is why it failed a decade ago when it was trendy, because the tech was nowhere clever enough to make that useful. But today, I'd bet the other way round.

replies(2): >>43544812 #>>43546328 #
earnestinger ◴[] No.43544812{3}[source]
It can ask, but how much time do you want to spend answering stuff?

Such dialog is probably nice for first time user, it is a nightmare for repeated user.

replies(1): >>43544989 #
littlestymaar ◴[] No.43544989{4}[source]
What prevents the system to remember your previous choices?

Then it can assume you choice haven't changed, and propose you a solution that matches your previous choices. And to give the user control it just needs to explicitly tell the user about the assumption it made.

In fact, a smart enough system could even see when violating the assumptions could lead to a substantial gain and try convincing the user that it may be a good option this time.

replies(2): >>43545637 #>>43546360 #
UncleMeat ◴[] No.43546360{5}[source]
The previous choice might not what I want today.

Maybe I'm tired of layovers and I'm willing to pay more for a direct flight this time. Maybe I want a different selection at a restaurant because I'm in the mood for tacos rather than a burrito.

replies(1): >>43546976 #
1. littlestymaar ◴[] No.43546976{6}[source]
Just tell it then.
replies(1): >>43555037 #
2. soco ◴[] No.43555037[source]
And then we're back to point one: retelling the whole stack of choices every time because nobody on the other side of the conversation, person or AI; can tell whether all my previous options are still valid. Because even I, the caller, might not remember what "defaults" I set in the previous call. So yeah, this argument in favor of conversational interfaces sounds at this point more like ideology than logic.
replies(1): >>43555378 #
3. littlestymaar ◴[] No.43555378[source]
> every time because nobody on the other side of the conversation, person or AI; can tell whether all my previous options are still valid.

But you can, so as long as the interlocutor tells you what assumptions it made, you can correct it if it doesn't match your current mood.

> So yeah, this argument in favor of conversational interfaces sounds at this point more like ideology than logic.

There's no ideology behind the fact that every people rich enough to afford paying someone to deal with mundane stuff will have someone doing it for them, it's just about convenience. Nobody likes to fight with web UIs for fun, the only reason why it has become mainstream is because it's so much cheaper than having a real person working.

Same for Microsoft Word by the way, many people used to have secretaries typing stuff for them, and it's been a massive regression of social status for the upper middle class to have to type things by themselves, it only happened because it was cheaper (in appearance at least).

replies(1): >>43556181 #
4. soco ◴[] No.43556181{3}[source]
Okay I think I finally get your point, and I even agree. The comparison with an executive assistant doesn't help much here, because the CEO interacts with only one person over all those delegatable activities, and the expectations are that person already knows all the defaults. That's what makes it smooth. This doesn't scale when you must deal with a different AI for each interaction. Will we get to a (scary maybe) point where Siri/Alexa/whoever can actually be that personal assistant? Maybe, but we're still far from it. So at least for today, the conversational interface is an extra burden. And tomorrow, we'll see.