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

Apps SDK

developers.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 397 posts

Re: Apps SDK

#141

Post by echelon »

notatoad wrote: post #137
fidotron wrote: post #50

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

i can't imagine that users will be interested in asking chatGPT to ask zillow things, or ask chatGPT to ask canva to do things. that's a clunky interface. i can see users asking chatGPT to look up house prices, or to generate graphics, but they're not going to ask for zillow or canva specifically. and if the apps are trusting ChatGPT to send them users based on those sort of queries, it's only a matter of time before…

Every company should see OpenAi as a threat. They absolutely will come for you when the time comes.

It's just like Google and websites, but much more insidious. If they can get your data, they'll subsume your function (and revenue stream).

Re: Apps SDK

#142

Post by bonoboTP »

This is part of the fight regarding whether we will have utility apps inside the chat app or chatboxes inside the utility apps. Obviously OpenAI would prefer that they are in the driver seat and delegate to passive apps, while regular apps like Booking would prefer to be the app the user uses and to run an AI chatbox nested inside their own app UI, so they can swap it out etc.

Convenience-wise probably this model is more viable, and things will get centralized to the AI apps. And the nested utilities will be walled gardens on steroids. Using custom software and general computing (in the manner of the now discontinued sideloading on Android) will get even further away for the average person.

Re: Apps SDK

#143

Post by helloguillecl »

d4mi3n wrote: post #136
helloguillecl wrote: post #133

Chat offers a far better experience than using Google—no more searching through spam-filled results, clicking between sponsored links, accepting endless cookie banners, and trying to read a tiny bit of useful content buried among ads and clutter. It has the potential to bridge the gap between pure conversation and the functionality of a full website.

I’m just worried they we’ll go from very obvious advertising to advertising that’s a lot harder to spot. I can block adds on a search engine. I cannot prevent an LMM from having hidden biases about what the best brand of vodka or car is.

I agree. But Google has gone in that direction long ago: ads are now harder to distinguish from genuine search results. In many cases, the organic results are buried so deep that they don’t even appear in the first visible section of the page anymore.

Re: Apps SDK

#144

Post by jimmydoe »

saberience wrote: post #134

What is the incentive for developers to build apps for this platform? I don't see any way of monetizing them at all.

fear of missing out, as always, be the first flappy bird in the store.

Re: Apps SDK

#145

Post by Traubenfuchs »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #43

In 2018, I founded a startup specializing in chatbot for events. At the time the platforms were Alexa Skills, Actions on Google, and Messenger Platform (and LINE Bot, for people in Asia). I guess what's old is new again, but with fancier tech. This time will be different?

Do people even want chatbots for events?

I personally prefer well curated information.

Re: Apps SDK

#146

Post by gapeslape »

fidotron wrote: post #50

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

I agree with what you are saying.

I’m building a tool that helps you solve any type of questionnaire (https://requestf.com) and I just can’t imagine how I could leverage Apps.

It would be awesome to get the distribution, but it has to also make sense from the UX perspective.

Re: Apps SDK

#147

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fidotron wrote: post #50

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

> conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future

Out of curiosity, why iff?

Re: Apps SDK

#148

Post by peab »

munk-a wrote: post #125
derekcheng08 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there are many, many things for which chat is a great interface. And by positioning ChatGPT as the distributor for all these things, they get to be the new Google. But you're also right that many domains for which a purpose-built interface is the right approach, and if the domain is valuable enough, it'll have someone coming after it to build that.

I have yet to see a chat agent deployed that is more popular than tailored browsing methods. The most charitable way to explain this is that the tailored browsing methods already in place are the results of years of careful design and battle testing and that the chat agent is providing most of the value that a tailored browsing method would but without any of the investment required to bring a traditional UX to fruit…

agree.

Thing is, for those who paid attention to the last chatBot hype cycle, we already knew this. Look at how Google Assistant was portrayed back in 2016. People thought you'd be buying starbucks via the chat. Turns out the starbucks app has a better UX

Re: Apps SDK

#149

Post by JumpCrisscross »

irrationalfab wrote: post #140
rushingcreek wrote: post #6

I think this is very interesting, but it is reminiscent of what we built with Phind 2 where the answer could include dynamic, pre-built widgets. The problem with this approach is precisely that these apps/widgets have hard-coded input and output schema. They can work quite well when the user asks something within the widget's capabilities, but the brittleness of this approach starts showing quickly in real-world use.…

> If those features aren't supported by the widget's hard-coded schema, you're out of luck as a user. Chat paired to the pre-built and on-demand widgets address this limitation. For example, in the keynote demo, they showed how the chat interface lets you perform advanced filtering that pulls together information from multiple sources, like filtering only Zillow housers near a dog park.

> Chat paired to the pre-built and on-demand widgets address this limitation

The only place I can see this working is if the LLM is generating a rich UI on the fly. Otherwise, you're arguing that a text-based UX is going to beat flashy, colourful things.

Re: Apps SDK

#150

Post by moralestapia »

tracker1 wrote: post #99
moralestapia wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Drank the kool-aid?!? I worked in the eLearning space, I was a prominent user and developer for Flash/Flex content... there was some interesting tooling for sure, I also completely disabled it on my home computers as a result of working with it. I had a lot of hopes after the Adobe buyout that Flash would morph into something based around ActionScript (ES4) and SVG. That didn't happen. MS's Silverlight/XAML was close…

>I was a prominent user and developer for Flash/Flex content

I was as well. It wasn't as bad as people describe it. It was an amazing platform, HTML5 just recently caught up.

In retrospective, Adobe should have open sourced it.

>MS's Silverlight/XAML was close

Hahahahahha, yeah sure! That tells me everything I need to know.

Post reply on HN