The case against conversational interfaces

Here's where the article goes wrong:

1. "Natural language is a data transfer mechanism"

2. "Data transfer mechanisms have two critical factors: speed and lossiness"

3. "Natural language has neither"

While a conversational interface does transfer information, its main qualities are what I always refer to as "blissfull ignorance" and "intelligent interpretation".

Blisfull ignorance allows the requester to state an objective while not being required to know or even be right in how to achieve it. It is the opposite of operational command. Do as I mean, not as I say.

"Intelligent Interpretation" allows the receiver the freedom to infer an intention in the communication rather than a command. It also allows for contextual interactions such as goal oriented partial clarification and elaboration.

The more capable of intelligent interpretation the request execution system is, the more appropriate a conversational interface will be.

Think of it as managing a team. If they are junior, inexperienced and not very bright, you will probably tend towards handholding, microtasking and micromanagement to get things done. If you have a team of senior, experienced and bright engineers, you can with a few words point out a desire and, trust them to ask for information when there is relevant ambiguity, and expect a good outcome without having to detail manage every minute of their days.

There is no evidence for any of that. Thoughts can form relatively quickly, but there's no way we can keep that up. Thoughts seem to stick around for a while.

And thoughts develop over time. They're often not conceived complete. That has been shown with some clever experiments.

And language production also puts a limit on our communication channel. It is probably optimized to convert communication intent into motor actions. It surely takes its time. That is not a problem for the system, since motor actions are slow. Idk where "lingthusiam" gets their ideas from, but there's psycholinguistic literature dating back to the 1920s that is often neglected by linguists.

I disagree with the author when they say something along the lines of “why don’t we use buttons instead of using these new assistive technology? Buttons are much faster, and I proved humans like fast.” I think that’s false. Why after 10 years of software development I haven’t learned EMACS? Because I’m lazy, because I don’t think it’s the bottleneck of my work. My bottleneck might be creativity or knowledge and conversational interfaces might be the best thing there are for these (in the lack of a knowledgeable and kind human, which the author also seems to agree with). Anyway, I don’t know, I found the title a bit disconnected from the content and the conclusions a bit overlappingly confusing but this is a complicated question. In the end I agree that we want a mix of things, we want a couple of keyboard strokes and we want chats. But most of all we probably want direct brain interface! ;)

Not exactly the same case as the article, but just a few minutes ago I booked a time for vaccinations online, and it was done through a chat interface. Screenshot: https://imgur.com/a/OWv7deF

Just infuriating. Instead of a normal date- and timepicker where I could see available slots, it's a chat where you have to click certain options. Then I had to reply "Ja" (yes) when it asked me if I had clicked the correct date. And then when none of the times of the day suited me, I couldn't just click a new date on the previous message, I instead have to press "vis datovelger på nytt"/show datepicker again, and get a new chat message where I this time select a different date and answer "Ja" again to see the available time slots. It's slow and useless. The title bar of the page says "Microsoft Copilot Studio", some fancy tech instead of a simple form..