Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case against conversational interfaces

julian.digital

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 225 posts

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#91

Post by scott_w »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #33

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 couldn't talk to your passenger while you were "driving" because that might make the car do something weird.

This even happens while walking my dog. If my wife messages me, my iPhone reads it out and, at the same time, I'm trying to cross a road, she'll get a garbled reply which is just me shouting random words at my dog to keep her under control.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#92

Post by fragmede »

JSR_FDED wrote: post #67
shubhamjain wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Accep…

And 10x worse than that is booking a flight: I found one that fits your budget, but it leaves at midnight, or requires an extra stop, or is on an airline for which you don't collect frequent flyer miles, or arrives it at a secondary airport in the same city, or it only has a middle seat available. How many of these inconveniences will you put up with? Any of them, all of them? What price difference makes it worthwhil…

But that is how we used to buy a plane ticket. Long before flights.google.com's price table, you'd call a human up and tell them you'd like to go on holiday. They'd ask you where and when and how much you could afford, and then after a while with the old system (SABRE) clicking and clacking they'd find you a good deal. After a few flights with that travel agent, they'd hey to know you and wouldn't have to ask so many questions.

Similarly, long before Waymo, you'd get into a taxi, and tell the human driver you're going to the airport, and they'd take you there. In fact, they'd get annoyed at you if you backseat drove, telling them how to use the blinker and how hard to brake and accelerate.

The thing about conversational interfaces is that we're used to them, because we (well, some of us) interface with other humans fairly regularly, and so it's a fairly baseline level skill to have to exist in the world today. There's a case to be made against them, but since everyone can be assumed to be conversational (though perhaps not in a given language), it's here to stay. Restaurants have menus that customers look at before using the conversation interface to get food, in order to guide the discussion, and that's had thousands of years to evolve, so it might be a local maxima, but it's a pretty good one.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#93

Post by pydry »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #33

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…

This rules out conversational UI for some tasks and applications but there are many where it will be useful and many where a hybrid would be best.

Even in a car, being able to control the windscreen wipers, radio, ask how much fuel is left are all tasks it would be useful to do conversationally.

There are some apps (im thinking of jira as an example) where i'd like to do 90% of the usage conversationally.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#94

Post by whatnow37373 »

It's no wonder extraverted normie and managerial types that get through their day by talking think throwing words at a problem is the best thing since sliced bread.

They have problems like "compose an email that vaguely makes the impression I'm considering various options but I'm actually not" and for that, I suspect, the conversational workflow is quite good.

Anyone else that actually just does the stuff is viscerally aware of how sub-optimal it is to throw verbiage at a computer.

I guess it depends on what level of abstraction you're working at.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#95

Post by ben_w »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #81

Star Trek continues to be prescient. It not only introduced the conversational interface to the masses, it also nailed its proper uses in ways we're still (re)discovering now. If you pay attention to how the voice interface is used in Star Trek (TNG and upwards), it's basically exactly what the article is saying - it complements manual inputs and works as a secondary channel. Nobody is trying to manually navigate the…

I have similar thoughts on LCARS: the Doylist requirement for displays that are bold enough and large enough to feel meaningful even when viewed on a 1990-era TV, are also the requirements for real life public information displays.

At first glance it feels like real life will not benefit from labelling 90% of the glowing rectangles with numbers as the show does, but second thoughts say spreadsheets and timetables.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#96

Post by paulluuk »

fellerts wrote: post #88

> To put the writing and speaking speeds into perspective, we form thoughts at 1,000-3,000 words per minute. Natural language might be natural, but it’s a bottleneck. Natural language is very lossy: forming a thought and conveying that through speech or text is often an exercise in frustration. So where does "we form thoughts at 1,000-3,000 words per minute" come from? The author clearly had a point about the efficie…

I'm also curious about this -- I'm pretty sure that I think actual words at about the speed at which I can speak them. I can not speak 3000 words per minute.

I also have my doubts about the numbers put forward on reading, listening and speaking. When reading, again I can read words about as fast as I can speak words. When I'm reading, I am essentially speaking out the words but in my mind. Is that not how other people read?

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#97

Post by TeMPOraL »

citrin_ru wrote: post #51
moffkalast wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Selecting pick-up/drop-off points on a map for me easier than explaining in words and that’s on of appeals of uber like services.

It's easier up until it's time to drop you off, and the selected dropoff point is suboptimal or plain impossible to stop at, and you want to give the car last-minute directions. Then the traditional, "human driver way" of looking out the window and telling them where to go based on what you see is far superior than trying to perspective-switch between the 3D situated view and imprecise, finicky 2D map interface.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#98

Post by woile »

gatinsama wrote: post #53

It is a huge turnoff for me when futuristic series use conversational interfaces. It happened in the Expanse and was hard to watch. For anyone who likes to think, learn, and tinker with user interfaces (HCI in general), it's obviously a high-latency and noisy channel.

I think the expanse nails it quite well. I really like when they move the videos from one screen to another. Or when they interact with the ship, they use all kind of outputs, voice, screens, buttons. For planning together, they talk and the machine renders, but then they have screens or even bracelets to interact.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#100

Post by vakkermans »

I appreciate the attempt at making sense of conversational interfaces, but I don't think natural language as a "data transfer mechanism" is a productive way of doing it.

Natural language isn't best described as data transfer. It's primarily a mechanism for collaboration and negotiation. A speech act isn't transferring data, it's an action with intent. Viewed as such the key metrics are not speed and loss, but successful coordination.

This is a case where a computer science stance isn't fruitful, and it's best to look through a linguistics lens.

Post reply on HN