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

181–190 of 219 posts

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

#181

Post by Timon3 »

andsoitis wrote: post #87
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…

> Generative AI does the same in one stroke. But it isn’t creating what I had in mind, or envisioned, if you will.

It might not be exactly what you envisioned, but that's where the difference comes in: with a batch processing system, you generate something over night with one input. With command processing systems you generate something with dozens or hundreds of individual commands, and it might still not be what you want.

With AI systems you generate something with one action, allowing you much faster iteration loops. Remember, the author argues that the current prompting still has bad usability. Presumably a system with good usability could allow you to generate what you want with one, or a couple, of attempts.

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

#182

Post by bambax »

> in command-based interactions, the user issues commands to the computer one at a time, gradually producing the desired result. The computer is fully obedient and does exactly what it’s told.

> With the new AI systems, the user no longer tells the computer what to do. Rather, the user tells the computer what outcome they want.

I think that's true, and a big part of the AI revolution. Instead of filling endless forms that have subtle controls to guide the user, we could have a simple conversation, like SIRI but that would actually work.

At my current client's, we're working on a big application that has many such forms. Once filled, the forms send the data to a back-end system (SAP). There's a team trying to train an LLM so that it can answer questions about the app and about how to fill the forms.

But I think the whole point of AI, as regards to this app, is to eventually replace it entirely. Just let end users ask questions and tell the machine what they want, and the machine can build the proper data and send it to SAP.

I don't think AI is a threat for back-end systems like SAP, at least not yet. But for front-end work, it's obvious that it would be infinitely more pleasant -- and possibly, more efficient -- to tell the machine what to do rather than filling forms.

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

#183

Post by leoedin »

jph00 wrote: post #169
memefrog wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can people please stop making this comment in reply to EVERY criticism of LLMs? "Humans are flawed too". We do not normally hallucinate. We are sometimes wrong, and sometimes are wrong about the confidence they should attach to their knowledge. But we do not simply hallucinate and spout fully confidence nonsense constantly. That is what LLMs. You remember a few isolated incidents because they're salient. That does no…

> We do not normally hallucinate. We are sometimes wrong, and sometimes are wrong about the confidence they should attach to their knowledge. But we do not simply hallucinate and spout fully confidence nonsense constantly. That is what LLMs. In my average interaction with GPT 4 there are far less errors than in this paragraph. I would say that here you in fact "spout fully confidence nonsense" (sic). Some humans are…

> Some humans are better than others at saying things that are correct, and at saying things with appropriately calibrated confidence.

That's true - which is why we have constructed a society with endless selection processes. Starting from kindergarten, we are constantly assessing people's abilities - so that by the time someone is interviewing for a safety critical job they've been through a huge number of gates.

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

#184

Post by strokirk »

worrycue wrote: post #157
famouswaffles wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We do not normally hallucinate. Oh yes we do lol. Many experiments show our perception of reality and of cognition is entirely divorced from the reality of what's really going on. Your brain is making stuff up all the time. Sense data you perceive is partly fabricated. Your memories are partly fabricated. Your decision rationales are post hoc rationalizations more often than not. That is, you don't genuinely know wh…

We don’t hallucinate in such a way / to the extend that it compromises our ability to do our job. Currently no one will trust a LLM to even run a helpline - that just a lawsuit waiting to happen should the AI hallucinate a “solution” that results in loss of property, injury or death.

Having worked in the help-line business, I can tell you that many corporations would and do use LLMs for their helpline, and used worse options before.

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

#185

Post by lexandstuff »

memefrog wrote: post #150
philovivero wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Can people please stop making this comment in reply to EVERY criticism of LLMs? "Humans are flawed too". We do not normally hallucinate. We are sometimes wrong, and sometimes are wrong about the confidence they should attach to their knowledge. But we do not simply hallucinate and spout fully confidence nonsense constantly. That is what LLMs. You remember a few isolated incidents because they're salient. That does no…

The equivalent of hallucinations in LLMs is false memories [1] in people. They happen all the time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory

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

#186

Post by insomagent »

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…

Sometimes a headline is all you need. Often times people won't read past the headline.

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

#187

Post by throwuwu »

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…

Those fall under the second category in the article. No different from using a command line application and passing in a set of parameters and receiving an output.

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

#188

Post by throwuwu »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #154
hyperthesis wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are humans limited to low-risk applications like that? No, but arguably civilization consists of mechanisms to manage human fallibility (separation of powers, bicameralism, "democracy", bureaucracy, regulations, etc). We might not fully understand why, but we've found methods that sorta kinda "work". > could have caused That's why they didn't.

> No, but arguably civilization consists of mechanisms to manage human fallibility Exactly. Civilization is, arguably, one big exercise in reducing variance in individuals, as low variance and high predictability is what lets us work together and trust each other, instead of seeing each other as threats and hiding from each other (or trying to preemptively attack). The more something or someone is unpredictable, the…

I think you’re weighting the contribution of authority a bit too highly. The bad actors to be concerned about are a very small percentage of the population and we do need institutions with authority to keep those people at bay but it’s not like there’s this huge pool of “high variance” people that need to be screened out. The vast majority of people are extremely close in both opinion and ability, any semblance of society would be impossible otherwise.

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

#189

Post by throwuwu »

wbobeirne wrote: post #16

> With this new UI paradigm, represented by current generative AI, the user tells the computer the desired result but does not specify how this outcome should be accomplished. This doesn't seem like a whole new paradigm, we already do that. When I hit the "add comment" button below, I'm not specifically instructing the web server how I want my comment inserted into a database (if it even is a database at all.) This i…

Under the new UI paradigm the ad comment button would let you submit something like “I disagree with this, provide a three paragraph argument that cites X and Y refuting this claim” and it would write the text for you.

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

#190

Post by throwuwu »

Timon3 wrote: post #181
andsoitis wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generative AI does the same in one stroke. But it isn’t creating what I had in mind, or envisioned, if you will.

It might not be exactly what you envisioned, but that's where the difference comes in: with a batch processing system, you generate something over night with one input. With command processing systems you generate something with dozens or hundreds of individual commands, and it might still not be what you want. With AI systems you generate something with one action, allowing you much faster iteration loops. Remember,…

The current systems do let you iterate, that’s why they use a chat interface. Has everyone just been firing off a single request and then giving up if the first response isn’t perfect?
Post reply on HN