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

AI is a technology not a product

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 224 posts

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#211

Post by joseda-hg »

layer8 wrote: post #62
tobr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn’t necessary fancy, just let me set some calendar events without knowing the magic words or tell it to open Overcast and play the new Gastropod episode. Better yet, for power users, let me set up reusable shortcuts using natural language. Isn’t this the proverbial ”faster horse”? Ie let me do exactly what I can do now, in a very slightly different, possibly very slightly more convenient way?

A car is still a faster horse in the sense that you decide where to go with it. It doesn’t outsource decisions to somewhere else. (Arguably the car affords you better control than an unruly horse. Self-driving cars are moving us closer to the horse again. ;))

A good horse is quite the autopilot

I've seen a horse get a black out drunk rider "safely" to a hammock and then continue to it's stable to rest

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#212

Post by lxgr »

yladiz wrote: post #208
lxgr wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? People are already holding their phone running Google Translate up to strangers to communicate with them.

In part because communication is not just language.

Isn’t that a good argument for needing a more capable model for assisting in it then?

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#215

Post by yladiz »

lxgr wrote: post #212
yladiz wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In part because communication is not just language.

Isn’t that a good argument for needing a more capable model for assisting in it then?

Not really. You can't really train a model to perform body language.

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#216

Post by noashavit »

basisword wrote: post #117
tobr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn’t necessary fancy, just let me set some calendar events without knowing the magic words or tell it to open Overcast and play the new Gastropod episode. Better yet, for power users, let me set up reusable shortcuts using natural language. Isn’t this the proverbial ”faster horse”? Ie let me do exactly what I can do now, in a very slightly different, possibly very slightly more convenient way?

Nothing wrong with a faster horse when AI isn't reliable enough yet to produce the car. Don't leave me with my aging horse while you cross your fingers that something better might come along someday.

I don't think we're at an aging horse moment, but a hurt one. One that can run fast sometimes but limps to the finish other times

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#217

Post by janalsncm »

ikeke wrote: post #137
janalsncm wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Voice is actually not a very good UI for most things Agreed. But it is a good UI for some things, and which things is probably situation and user specific. Many people’s frustration with Siri is that many of the things it should be good at based on their decision to try , Siri cannot do.

Voice is only good in the context of something that is high priority(e.g talking to a customer service agent) / highly satisfactory (e.g talking to a friend in real time). Otherwise humans hate that interface.

Voice is a good interface for people who can’t or shouldn’t look at a screen. CarPlay for example, could have a lot more powerful voice capabilities.

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#218

Post by kj4211cash »

getnormality wrote: post #173
kj4211cash wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a bunch of Amazon transplants who newly arrived at my company and have started doing this. I thought I would love it, because I'm a good writer, a great reader, not great at PowerPoint or meeting gamesmanship, etc. Turns out I kind of hate it. The silent reading time is annoying, especially when you've already read the doc or when most people are on zoom, etc. The intellectual bloodbath doesn't happen at my c…

Wait, so, there's silent reading time that you hate, AND somehow seniors still manage to claim that they didn't read the thing?

Well they don't say they didn't read the thing. But 10-20 minutes often isn't enough time to truly digest the arguments. And even it were, I'm not sure it would matter. What I've seen is 10-20 minutes of awkward silent time followed by a level of discussion that isn't notably better than meetings before we adopted Amazon ways. Probably we are doing it wrong and/or have the wrong people in the room.

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#219

Post by kj4211cash »

otterley wrote: post #204
nh2 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking the grandparent: The what is the idea behind the "ideally have already read the paper, but given 10-20 minutes in silence" part? The fact that people that have already read it have nothing to do and waste time sitting around bored sounds like an obvious flaw, are we missing something?

I take issue with the “ideally have already read the paper” part. That’s actually not true for most of the attendees. There will be some who have, though, and those will be your co-authors or others who have helped you prepare it before the meeting. And they don’t mind waiting in silence during the reading period, because they have a stake in the outcome. Also, 20 minutes of respite isn’t necessarily “waste.” Having…

Can you really think deeply in 20 min, while on zoom or in a meeting room?

I think this gets to the heart of my complaint. I thought this would increase the water level on our technical discussions. It hasn't. Like I say, could be the documents or people are poor. In any event, I'm one person that believed in this right up until my org implemented it.

Re: AI is a technology not a product

#220

Post by otterley »

kj4211cash wrote: post #219
otterley wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take issue with the “ideally have already read the paper” part. That’s actually not true for most of the attendees. There will be some who have, though, and those will be your co-authors or others who have helped you prepare it before the meeting. And they don’t mind waiting in silence during the reading period, because they have a stake in the outcome. Also, 20 minutes of respite isn’t necessarily “waste.” Having…

Can you really think deeply in 20 min, while on zoom or in a meeting room? I think this gets to the heart of my complaint. I thought this would increase the water level on our technical discussions. It hasn't. Like I say, could be the documents or people are poor. In any event, I'm one person that believed in this right up until my org implemented it.

We’re talking about the quiet reading period here. If someone has already read the document or participated in its authorship, they get 20-30 minutes of silence to think about whatever they’d like. And yes, those minutes can be a useful respite from an otherwise hectic day.

I have no idea how your org implemented the table read, so I can’t comment on why it may not have been effective there.

Post reply on HN