> The interface looks the same as a Google search box
Indeed, and like any other text box, like whatsapp, like word — all tools that no one uses because they lack affordances.
Chatbots are not the future
151–156 of 156 posts
Re: Chatbots are not the future
#152> Text inputs have no affordances It has all the affordances. You can turn it into anything you want. Want it respond with json, check, it can do that. Turn a wall of text into a Python data structures, check, it can do that too. You can take your LLM text interface and put what ever api you want on top. You start with clay and mold it into anything you need. You construct a parser so that the way data is already con…
Whether you want to call it an "empty set" or "the set of all possible sets" isn't really relevant to the authors point that an empty box has discoverability problems.
I regret posting. The article itself is a trap. As a developer, the chatbot interface is everything to everyone, as a developer. The application user of course needs a rich interface with affordances.
I am not arguing that the chat interface is everything to everyone from a design perspective. I do think that as UI workbenches improve the need for a dedicated application will nearly disappear though. Applications will become a 1-5 page specification, including the UI.
Re: Chatbots are not the future
#153Very very offtopic: He called ChatGPT oracle, nice but not enough. I want someone to name chatbot their `oracle of delphi` plz. thank you.
*their chatbot
Re: Chatbots are not the future
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every "impressive chatgpt" story I hear is about someone comparing what chatgpt produced to what a human produced, and saying it's scary close. No one talks about all the times they asked chatgpt to produce something, didn't compare it to what a human could do, and then realized it was catastrophically wrong once implemented.
I suppose all that really matters if the ratio of the two? I have use-cases for which I use GPT-4 and it does as good a job as I would, but faster and so I just leverage it by default now and am faster at certain things. There are also things I try it for and I don't get a useful result, so I learn not to rely on the model for that particular use-case. In that regard, it's a tool and you simply learn what it's useful…
But it's a tool that requires you to already know what you're doing, which I think cuts in to a lot of the techno-mystical powers that have been attributed to it.
Re: Chatbots are not the future
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
gesticulates broadly at the entire field
Fair enough
While there is a massive amount of overhype this cycle, I would still say that most of the hype comes from newly minted AI "experts" that were recently, e.g., cryptocurrency experts, or NFT experts, or epidemiology experts, or politics experts, or "integrity in gaming journalism" experts, or whatever, etc.
When people like Ashton Kucthar [1] are the equivalent of shoe shine boys and taxi cab drivers giving stock tips, then I feel the hype has gotten out of control.
Don't get me wrong! As someone who researches learning and intelligence, I think these developments are pretty neat. But man, the amount of people who are defining intelligence down to the level of a chatbot or predicting the impending doom of mankind are ... getting a little ahead of themselves.
So many experts.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/ashton-kutcher-firms-go-out-...
Re: Chatbots are not the future
#156> When I go up the mountain to ask the ChatGPT oracle a question, I am met with a blank face. What does this oracle know? I think if your attitude is that its an oracle, then you already have the wrong attitude for using the tool. Chatgpt is a tool, if you dont know how to use the tool, stop complaining that you don't like it. Imagine telling everyone scalpels are horrible tools because they tried to perform surgery…
[flagged]