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

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#111

Post by ramblejam »

shubhamjain wrote: post #55
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…

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…

> since users themselves don’t clearly know what they want.

Knowing what you want is, sadly, computationally irreducible.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#112

Post by fellerts »

paulluuk wrote: post #96
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 peopl…

It sounds like you have a strong inner monologue. Some people do, some don't. I don't subvocalize (no inner voice when reading). Words aren't involved when I think about stuff. I don't have an inner "voice" at all, only when I'm trying to communicate. Maybe I need to more "translating" from thought to voice than you do?

This stuff is fascinating.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#113

Post by whatevertrevor »

paulluuk wrote: post #96
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 peopl…

Nope. Plenty people don't have an internal monologue, and even if they do it's not on all the time.

For me, when I need to think clearly about a specific/novel thing, a monologue helps, but I don't voice out thoughts like "I need a drink right now".

Also I read much faster than I speak, I have to slow down while reading fiction as a result.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#114

Post by citrin_ru »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #97
citrin_ru wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A perfect interface would be a combination of both ways. Also it depends on personal preferences. I learned to use a paper map as a teenager and it’s convenient for me but I know some people struggle to find a way even using a map on a smartphone.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#115

Post by PeterStuer »

throwaway290 wrote: post #71
PeterStuer wrote: post #52

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 obje…

> 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 It's such a fallacy. First thing an experienced and bright engineer will tell you is to leave the premises with your "few words about a desire" and not return without actual specs and requirements formalized in…

I do understand that in bad cases it can be very frustrating as an engineer to chase vague statements only to be told later 'nah, that was not what I meant'. This is especially true when the gap in both directions is very large or there is incompetence and/or even adversarial stances between the parties. Language and communication only work if both parties are willing to understand.

Unfortunately if either is the case "actual specs and requirements formalized", while sounding logical, and might help, in my experience did very little to save any substantial project (and I've seen a lot). The common problem is that the business/client/manager is forced to sign of on formal documents far outside their domain of competence, or the engineers are straitjacketed into commitments that do not make sense or have no idea of what is considered tacit knowledge in the domain and so can't contextualize the unstated. Those formalized documents then mostly become weaponized in a mutual destructive CYA.

What I've also seen more than once is years of formalized specs and requirements work while nothing ever gets produced, and the project is aborted before even the first line of code hit test.

I've given this example before: When Covid lockdows hit there were digitization projects years in planning and budgeted for years of implementation, that were hastily specked, coded and roiled out into production by a 3 person emergency team over a long weekend. Necessity apparently has a way of cutting through the BS like nothing else can.

You need both sides capable, willing and able to understand. If not, good luck mitigating, but you're probably doomed either way.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#116

Post by Propelloni »

shubhamjain wrote: post #55
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…

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…

> 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.

Amen to that. I guess, it would help to get of the IT high horse and have a talk with linguists and philosophers of language. They are dealing with this shit for centuries now.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#117

Post by incorrecthorse »

> we form thoughts at 1,000-3,000 words per minute

I would like to know what this measures exactly.

The reason I often prefer writing to talking is because writing lets me the time to pause and think. In those cases the bottleneck is very clearly my thought process (which, at least consciously, doesn't appear to me as "words").

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#118

Post by littlestymaar »

earnestinger wrote: post #109
littlestymaar wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dec…

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.

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.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#119

Post by soulofmischief »

f1shy wrote: post #65
soulofmischief wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will counter this by saying that my time spent with screens before 6 was unimaginably critical for me. If I hadn't had it, I would have been trapped by the racist, religously zealous, backwoods mentality that gripped the rest of my family and the majority of the people I grew up with. I discovered video games at age 3 and it changed EVERYTHING. It completely opened my mind to abstract thought and, among other thing…

I second this motion. Technology is just a tool. It can be wisely used or not. Just forbidding it, is not wise in my opinion. You have to be careful to use it properly, or course. Also let me drop the thought here, that Rudolf Steiner, like Montesori and the like, shoot "this is good" "this is bad" based on "feeling" or intuition, or such. There were no extensive scientific studies behind it.

The funny thing is that I remember the exact moment I fell in love with computers at 4. My grandmother cleaned houses and was often very late to pick me up from Headstart. So I would spend hours waiting, unsupervised, in a room with computer that had a giant note attached to the screen saying DO NOT TOUCH.

>:)

By 5, all I wanted was a computer. To me they represented and unending well of knowledge.

Post reply on HN