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

101–110 of 225 posts

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#101

Post by Hauthorn »

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 think you work in different domains.

Expecting a good outcome is different from expecting to get exactly what you intended.

Formal specifications are useful in some lines of work and for some projects, less so for others.

Wicked problems would be one example where formal specs are impossible by definition.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#102

Post by shakna »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #84
namaria wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two key things that make computers useful, specificity and exactitude, are thrown out of the window by interposing NLP between the person and the computer. I don't get it at all.

[imprecise thinking] v In many cases, you don't want or need that. In some, you do. Use right tool for the job, etc.

I don't think they give a specific and exact output, considering how nondeterminism plays a role in most models.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#103

Post by jyounker »

anthk wrote: post #14
neom wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went through Waldorf education and although Rudolf Steiner is quite eccentric, one thing I think he was spot on about was regarding WHEN you introduce technology. He believed that introducing technology or mechanized thinking too early in childhood would hinder imaginative, emotional, and spiritual development. He emphasized that children should engage primarily with natural materials, imaginative play, storytellin…

Wasn't Waldorf a cult?

The story is kind of wild. Behind the Bastards has a couple of episodes on Rudolf Steiner, the founder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_2HkBugFBw

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#104

Post by earcar »

Who's actually making the claim we should replace everything with natural language? Almost nobody serious. This article sets up a bit of a strawman while making excellent points.

What we're really seeing is specific applications where conversation makes sense, not a wholesale revolution. Natural language shines for complex, ambiguous tasks but is hilariously inefficient for things like opening doors or adjusting volume.

The real insight here is about choosing the right interface for the job. We don't need philosophical debates about "the future of computing" - we need pragmatic combinations of interfaces that work together seamlessly.

The butter-passing example is spot on, though. The telepathic anticipation between long-married couples is exactly what good software should aspire to. Not more conversation, but less need for it.

Where Julian absolutely nails it is the vision of AI as an augmentation layer rather than replacement. That's the realistic future - not some chat-only dystopia where we're verbally commanding our way through tasks that a simple button press would handle more efficiently.

The tech industry does have these pendulum swings where we overthink basic interaction models. Maybe we could spend less time theorizing about natural language as "the future" and more time just building tools that solve real problems with whatever interface makes the most sense.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#105

Post by blatantly »

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 remember Picard barking out commands to make the ship do preprogrammed evasion or fight maneuvers too. This seems like another good use.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#106

Post by mattmanser »

earcar wrote: post #104

Who's actually making the claim we should replace everything with natural language? Almost nobody serious. This article sets up a bit of a strawman while making excellent points. What we're really seeing is specific applications where conversation makes sense, not a wholesale revolution. Natural language shines for complex, ambiguous tasks but is hilariously inefficient for things like opening doors or adjusting volu…

I don't think it's a straw man, there's lots of people who think it might, or under vague impressions that it might. Plenty of less technical people. Because they haven't thought it through.

The article is useful as it's enunciated arguments which many of us have intuited, but are not necessarily able to explain ourselves.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#107

Post by littlestymaar »

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…

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 decade ago when it was trendy, because the tech was nowhere clever enough to make that useful. But today, I'd bet the other way round.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#108

Post by nerdponx »

fragmede wrote: post #92
JSR_FDED wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And how many people book flights that way today?

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#109

Post by earnestinger »

littlestymaar wrote: post #107
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…

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.

Re: The case against conversational interfaces

#110

Post by gertrunde »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #90

There have abeen a few of these posts on HN redcently - people who claim that AI/LLM are just some sort of passing fad or of no value or less value than people are saying anyway. People who write these posts want to elevate their self value by nay-saying what is popular. I don't understand the psychology but it seems like that sort of pattern to me. It takes a deliberate blindness to say that AI/LLMs are just some so…

I have to suspect that your post is based on assumptions from the (somewhat misleading) post title, rather than from reading the article content.

The following is a direct quite from the article:

"None of this is to say that LLMs aren’t great. I love LLMs. I use them all the time. In fact, I wrote this very essay with the help of an LLM."

Post reply on HN