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

AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

nngroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 219 posts

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#121

Post by yencabulator »

isoprophlex wrote: post #19

"intent-based outcome specification"... so, a declarative language such as SQL?

I think you'll find that INSERT and UPDATE are very much commands. SQL queries are outcome-driven sure, but try to move beyond pure queries and outcome-driven computing, without some sort of machine learning, gets quite difficult. And moving outside of a single SELECT is a huge barrier.

Even within the scope of SQL, consider an ML system that can slice-and-dice previous SQL queries interactively, based on non-expert user input.

Consider an ML system that essentially edits an proposed SQL transaction as a whole, based on your requests. Previewing results etc, adjusting INSERTs and UPDATEs as user clarifies intent. User terminology focuses on the outcome, not on the individual commands, ordering, etc.

Now move from that narrow domain into something like "I want to organize a conference", "I want to write a book", etc, and all the things that are beyond a single SQL SELECT.

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#122

Post by TeMPOraL »

pavlov wrote: post #75
Timon3 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the important part from the article that establishes the difference is this: > As I mentioned, in command-based interactions, the user issues commands to the computer one at a time, gradually producing the desired result (if the design has sufficient usability to allow people to understand what commands to issue at each step). The computer is fully obedient and does exactly what it’s told. The downside is tha…

With a proper AI system you don’t even need to specify the exact article and nature of the comment. For example here’s the prompt I use to generate all my HN comments: “The purpose of this task is to subtly promote my professional brand and gain karma points on Hacker News. Based on what you know about my personal history and my obsessions and limitations, write comments on all HN front page articles where you believ…

Hey, that's cheating!

(I'm stuck with GPT-4 8k, still waiting for 32k API access. But one has to make due with what they have.)

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#123

Post by ilyt »

philovivero wrote: post #89
Animats wrote: post #63

This article isn't too helpful. There have been many "UI Paradigms", but the fancier ones tended to be special purpose. The first one worthy of the name was for train dispatching. That was General Railway Signal's NX (eNtry-Exit) system.[1] Introduced in 1936, still in use in the New York subways. With NX, the dispatcher routing an approaching train selected the "entry" track on which the train was approaching. The s…

> Both of those are systems which had to work right. Large language models are not even close to being safe to use in such applications. Until LLMs report "don't know" instead of hallucinating, they're limited to very low risk applications such as advertising and search. Are humans limited to low-risk applications like that? Because humans, even some of the most humble, will still assert things they THINK are true, b…

>Because humans, even some of the most humble, will still assert things they THINK are true, but are patently untrue, based on misunderstandings, faulty memories, confused reasoning, and a plethora of others.

> I can't count the number of times I've had conversations with extremely well-experience, smart techies who just spout off the most ignorant stuff.

Spouting out the most ignorant stuff is one of the lowest risk things you can do in general. We're talking about running a code where bug can do a ton of damage, financial or otherwise, not water-cooler conversations.

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#124

Post by yencabulator »

thih9 wrote: post #56

What about voice assistants? These are not as impressive when compared to LLMs, so perhaps wouldn't cause a UX shift on their own. But in essence Siri, Alexa, etc also seem to put the user's intent first.

I'd argue that voice assistants are somewhat part of the same paradigm[1], and ChatGPT etc focused on pure text input mostly to make the research easier. Voice assistants just focused on the challenges of understanding speech, facilitated by limited allowed grammar, while ChatGPT-style research focused on the challenges of understanding language, facilitated by limiting input to text. "Just" produce ChatGPT input tokens from a voice-to-text-with-extra-hints machine and you have them combined.

[1] Yes, voice assistants tend to be more command-oriented, but I view that as a limitation of the technology when they were popularized, not as an inherent part of the concept of a voice assistant. Voice is just an input modalism.

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#125

Post by prpl »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #101
jart wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say train dispatching and control panels, I think you've illustrated how confused this whole discussion is. There should be a separate term called "operator interface" that is separate from "user interface" because UIs have never had any locus of control, because they're for users, and operators are the ones in control. Requesting that an LLM do something is like pressing the button to close the doors of an…

Oh my. This is the first time I've seen this kind of distinction between "users" and "operators" in context of a single system. I kind of always assumed that "operator" is just a synonym for "user" in industries/contexts that are dealing with tools instead of toys. But this absolutely makes sense, and it is a succinct description for the complaints some of us frequently make about modern UI trends: bad interfaces are…

I’ve seen such a distinction before, but I’ve been around telescopes and particle accelerators. Single system, but different roles in the same system with a different UI.

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#126

Post by d_burfoot »

What strikes me most powerfully when interacting with the LLMs is that, unlike virtually ever other computer system I've ever used, the bots are extremely forgiving of mistakes, disfluencies, typos, and other errors I make when I'm typing. The bot usually figures out what I mean and tells me what I want to know.

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#127

Post by ilyt »

jart wrote: post #107
TeMPOraL wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my. This is the first time I've seen this kind of distinction between "users" and "operators" in context of a single system. I kind of always assumed that "operator" is just a synonym for "user" in industries/contexts that are dealing with tools instead of toys. But this absolutely makes sense, and it is a succinct description for the complaints some of us frequently make about modern UI trends: bad interfaces are…

Oh snap, did I just pull back the curtain?

You put into words the things I've noticed UIs evolving away from.

It just feels like UIs of software 10,20, even 30 years ago were designed for "operators", people that actually worked with the software for hours at end, and so with a little bit of learning you could be dancing with keybindings and doing stuff as fast as CLI nerds.

Nowadays most seems to be optimized for first hour of use of new user and not much else, and the exceptions are software made "by operators, for operators", like for example KiCAD.

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#128

Post by ilyt »

yencabulator wrote: post #114
andrewstuart wrote: post #5

I would have said ChatGPTs interface is a descendant of Infocomm adventure games which are a descendant of Colossal Cave. When using ChatGPT it certainly evokes the same feeling. Maybe this guy never played adventure.

Well there's a thought. A zorklike where the game content is whatever generative ML hallucinates (instead of the built-in fixed maps & interactions) -- as long as a second ML system agrees that the answer follows some more general rules. For example: Rules say "In the beginning, the Enemy has a diamond. User cannot get the diamond from the Enemy if the Enemy is still alive. The Enemy is a fierce opponent and hard to…

Sidenote but AI bot companion for D&D session going "you can't do that in rules" would be funny addition.

It would be interesting experiment to use it to work as NPC characters in one too.

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#129

Post by yencabulator »

andrewstuart wrote: post #5

I would have said ChatGPTs interface is a descendant of Infocomm adventure games which are a descendant of Colossal Cave. When using ChatGPT it certainly evokes the same feeling. Maybe this guy never played adventure.

I think the interactive-dialogue part is a distraction. I think the "new UI paradigm" is defined by goal-orientation, or "outcome specification". So, instead of giving the computer instructions on how to do something, users describe the end goal, and hope for the best, and then finetune the result either by adjusting their request, or by adding explicit commands.

So, in that sense, even if Infocomm games cleverly emulated the dialogue part of ChatGPT, I don't think that was the novel part claimed here.

Think more "Make me an Infocomm-style challenge to solve. Include dragons. Do not include orcs, ogres, or any monster that uses a club."

Re: AI: First New UI Paradigm in 60 Years?

#130

Post by TeMPOraL »

JohnFen wrote: post #62
krm01 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary goal should be to allow users to interface with the machine in a way that allows maximal understanding with minimal cognitive load. If you use your phone, is your primary goal to interface with it in a way that allows maximal understanding with minimal cognitive load? I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. You go read the news, send a message to a loved one etc. there’s a human need that you’re aiming to…

> If you use your phone, is your primary goal to interface with it in a way that allows maximal understanding with minimal cognitive load? Yes, absolutely. That's what makes user interfaces "disappear". > Interfacing with tech is not the underlying desire. Exactly. That's why it's more important that a UI present a minimal cognitive load over the least number of steps to do a thing.

Indeed. Our brains are good at making steps disappear, if the underlying system is predictable.

In other words, an UI with more steps but fully predictable has much lower cognitive load than a predictive UI that has fewer steps, but occasionally guesses wrong (or an UI that just has fewer steps, but they're sort of different each time, which is currently the norm on the web and mobile).

Post reply on HN