Live data from Hacker News

Google's True Moonshot

stratechery.com

21–30 of 127 posts

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#21
The one part of this thesis that I pretty strongly disagree with is the idea that people would prefer to have long, meandering voice conversations with an AI, compared to text.

Just look at anyone under the age of 25 (35 maybe?) They can easily have long, meandering conversations with actual humans using voice, yet I see them go for text 9 times out of ten. As someone on the backside of middle age, I often find it pretty baffling. I like the succinctness of text when I need to send a quick update or ask a short question, but I normally always call someone for an in-depth conversation. But I'll see my nieces text back and forth with friends for literally hours, sometimes getting emotionally worked up, and I'm thinking "OMG, just pick up the phone to your ear and just talk to them."

But I think the reason people prefer texting is the same reason most people still prefer typing, despite tech that, these days, could easily transcribe with great accuracy. At least for me, typing frees up my brain to actually move faster. When typing, I can think about the next phrase or sentence. When talking, I find it much more difficult to "think ahead", so to speak.

So I'm really skeptical that voice interfaces will be "the wave of the future". Sure, I use OK Google a lot, but basically for the same sets of commands as everyone else (What's the weather? Set my alarm. What's next on my calendar? Etc. etc.) Occasionally I'll ask it "search-like" questions. Perhaps I suffer from a dearth of imagination, but I just have a hard time believing long voice conversations with a machine are something most folks would want.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is more than that -- namely that in addition to having sophisticated AI, Google also controls the OS (Android) and hardware (Pixel). Being able to integrate best-in-class AI at every level of the stack is a tremendous advantage. OpenAI can't do this because they don't control the OS, and will always need to go through an app. Apple can play since they control OS and hardware, but at the moment they appea…

>Apple can play since they control OS and hardware, but at the moment they appear pretty far behind in the AI aspect. I disagree strongly with this, and it has everything to do with how we conceptualize AI. I get in my car and plug in my iPhone. CarPlay immediately causes the Maps app to pop up and route me to my next meeting. I can say "hey siri, set a reminder to call Mr. Jones at 3:00" and she will gladly comply.…

I suggest you try the assistant features on a Pixel 8 Pro. They have all the features you mentioned (except the creepy eavesdropping golf one) and the interaction is miles ahead, especially the text to speech.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#23
> Yes, Android has its advantages to iOS, but they aren’t particularly meaningful to most people, and even for those that care — like me — they are not large enough to give up on iOS’s overall superior user experience.

That's not the real question though - the real question is whether people find iOS compelling enough to pay a premium for using it and put up with the ecosystem lock-in. And the user experience is only superior when you're used to it, as a longtime Android user I regularly get frustrated when having to use an iOS device...

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#24
post #18

I was under the impression that the data google has isn’t too valuable for ai training, as quality is so important. If textbook quality data is needed, then we are basically limited by the current best LLM’s ability to create synthetic textbooks. Or perhaps this is a path Microsoft is trying (and presumably openai) due to a lack of good non-synthetic data.

Google Books would probably be useful, although I don't know if they're able to take advantage of it.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#25
Does anyone know if it is actually possible to completely disable the voice assistant on Android? I've changed every setting I can, and no matter what, if I plug in headphones, it'll prompt me if the connection goes loose.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#26
Aside: excruciating one hundred paragraphs about stuff he said previously, recently, or in another lifetime, before getting to the actual topic and title subject of the article. Geez. I don't need articles to be transcripts of podcast-esque rambling. Get on with it!

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#27

The one part of this thesis that I pretty strongly disagree with is the idea that people would prefer to have long, meandering voice conversations with an AI, compared to text. Just look at anyone under the age of 25 (35 maybe?) They can easily have long, meandering conversations with actual humans using voice, yet I see them go for text 9 times out of ten. As someone on the backside of middle age, I often find it pr…

Not all people experience thought the same way. Some people (like me) find it no problem to compose a sentence in advance while speaking some previous words. The speaking doesn't conflict with the composition. Some people can count, do math, or keep time silently in their head while reading. Other people can't do that because their thoughts and language processing are linked differently somehow.

For me, I prefer to dictate to my Android phone in contexts where most people choose to type, such as in a short message. It's faster than typing on-screen, and the way I think I am able to compose ahead in a way I can't do while typing. The dictation is so good these days that there are relatively few mistakes and ambiguities to correct, and the UIs for doing so have become easier.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#28
We should consider the fact that AI ain’t a company, it is a feature, the same as highly intelligent people per se don’t earn tons of money.

Paradoxically we are in a phase of technological stagnation. Cloud movement was/is maybe the latest paradigm shift for a couple of years to decades to come.

AI will accelerate features and won’t mark a product category itself, same as gifted people are capable of outperforming others in intellectual fields, but don’t necessarily need to.

The mundane stuff like generating text is what is AI paradoxically needed for. (Imagine that, that humanity’s greatest gift is now outsourced.)

This is what makes AI so hard to grasp. We know what it is, but it is hard to applying it in concrete business contexts. “OK Google analyze my company with 100.000 workers” won’t happen soon. Society needs to take care of possible side effects first.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#29

We should consider the fact that AI ain’t a company, it is a feature, the same as highly intelligent people per se don’t earn tons of money. Paradoxically we are in a phase of technological stagnation. Cloud movement was/is maybe the latest paradigm shift for a couple of years to decades to come. AI will accelerate features and won’t mark a product category itself, same as gifted people are capable of outperforming o…

Oh I am pretty certain someone™ will put the whole personal record into an LLM on someone elses computer (aka the cloud) and ask who needs to be fired and come up with a reason. Then they will fire them. Then the reason will turn out to be bullshit.

On the other side, there will be a ton of cowards who will say the computer told them to do X, where X is the thing they wanted to do all along. And the neat part is that you don't even need to ask a computer for that, you just pretend you did. And in the end if Xbturns out to be a shit choice, you can use the famous software error-excuse and be off the hook immediately, because apparently liability ends there automatically or something.

Re: Google's True Moonshot

#30

The one part of this thesis that I pretty strongly disagree with is the idea that people would prefer to have long, meandering voice conversations with an AI, compared to text. Just look at anyone under the age of 25 (35 maybe?) They can easily have long, meandering conversations with actual humans using voice, yet I see them go for text 9 times out of ten. As someone on the backside of middle age, I often find it pr…

> At least for me, typing frees up my brain to actually move faster. When typing, I can think about the next phrase or sentence. When talking, I find it much more difficult to "think ahead", so to speak.

I wonder if this would change as we got more familiar with interacting with a voice AI. I think a lot of the extra brain power that goes into talking versus typing is the assumed need to keep talking at a constant pace because that is what a human listener expects. If we were more comfortable with pausing while talking and not feeling like we need to always know what to say next as soon as we get to the end of a word, it might not take as much brain power to speak to a computer anymore.

Post reply on HN