Live data from Hacker News

The case against conversational interfaces

julian.digital

41–50 of 225 posts

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#42
post #25
post #22

> because after 50+ years of marriage he just sensed that she was about to ask for it. It was like they were communicating telepathically. > That is the type of relationship I want to have with my computer! He means automation of routine tasks? Took 50 years to reach that in the example. What if you want to do something new? Will the thought guessing module in your computer even allow that?

I don't know, but I feel like we already have the "telepathic grandfather interface." Or at least we try to have it. My iPhone is constantly guessing at things to suggest to me (I use the share button a lot in different apps) and it's wrong more often than not, forcing me to constantly hunt for things (to say nothing about autocorrect, which is constantly changing correct words that I'd previously typed into incorrec…

This right here is probably my single biggest complaint with modern computing. It's a phenomenon I've taken to calling, in daily life, "tools trying to be too damn smart for their own good". I detest it. I despise it. Many of the evils of the modern state of tech--algorithmic feeds, targeted advertising, outwardly user-hostile software that goes incredible lengths to kneecap your own ability to choose how to use it--so, so much of it boils down to tools, things that should be extensions of their users' wills, being designed to "think" they know better what the user wants to do than the users themselves. I do not want my software, designed more often than not by companies with adversarial ulterior motives, to attempt to decide for me what I meant to watch, to listen to, to type, to use, to do. It flies in the face of the function of a tool, it robs people of agency, and above all else it's frankly just plain annoying having to constantly correct and work around these assumptions made based on spherical users in frictionless vacuums and tuned for either the lowest common denominator or whatever most effectively boosts some handful of corporate metrics-cum-goals (usually both). I want my computer to do what I tell it to, not what it (or rather, some bunch of brainworm-infested parasites on society locked in a boardroom) thinks I want to do. I can make exceptions for safety-critical applications. I do not begrudge my computer for requiring additional confirmation to rm -rf root, or my phone for lowering my volume when I have it set stupidly loud, or my car for having overly-sensitive emergency stop or adaptive cruise functions. These cases also all, crucially, have manual overrides. I can add --no-preserve-root, crank my volume right back up, and turn off cruise control and control my speed with the pedals. Forced security updates I only begrudge for their tendency to serve as a justification or cover for shipping anti-features alongside. Autocorrecting the word "fuck" out of my vocabulary, auto-suggesting niche music out of my listening, and auto-burying posts from my friends who don't play the game out of my communications are not safety-critical. Let computers be computers. Let them do what I ask of them. Let me make the effort of telling them what that is. Is that so much to ask>

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#43
>I admit that the title of this essay is a bit misleading (made you click though, didn’t it?). This isn’t really a case against conversational interfaces, it’s a case against zero-sum thinking.

No matter the intention or quality of the article, i do not like this kind of deceitful link-bait article. It may have higher quality than pure link-bait but nobody like to be deceived

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#44

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…

Honestly that just says that the interface is too low level. Telling a car to drive you to some place and make it fast is how we interact with taxi drivers. It works fine as a concept, it just needs a higher level of abstraction that isn't there yet.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#45
I agree with some of the sentiments in the post, but I am somewhat surprised by the framing. Why make ‘a case’ against something that will clearly win or lose depending on adoption? Is the author suggestion that we should not be betting our money or resources on developing this? In this case we need more details for particular use cases, I would say.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#47

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…

If the driver could queue actions it would make chat interfaced driving easier since the desired actions could be prepared for implementation by button press rather than needed a dedicated button built at a factory built by an engineer.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#48

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…

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.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#49

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…

Honestly that just says that the interface is too low level. Telling a car to drive you to some place and make it fast is how we interact with taxi drivers. It works fine as a concept, it just needs a higher level of abstraction that isn't there yet.

This only works for tasks where the details of execution are not important. Driving fits that category well, but many other tasks we're throwing at AI don't.
Post reply on HN