Absolutely agree. An agent running in the background.
The case against conversational interfaces
41–50 of 225 posts
Re: The case against conversational interfaces
#42> 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…
Re: The case against conversational interfaces
#43No 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
#44This 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…
Re: The case against conversational interfaces
#45Re: The case against conversational interfaces
#46Re: The case against conversational interfaces
#47This 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…
Re: The case against conversational interfaces
#48This 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…
Re: The case against conversational interfaces
#49This 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.