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

Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

geoffreylitt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 290 posts

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#241

Post by trainsarebetter »

imglorp wrote: post #219
beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There already are debates about "drive by wire" in racing today, I can't imagine how bad it'll be when it's "drive by copilot."

Rally co-driver/navigator seems reasonable, given its augmented senses like gps and radar. One part "90 degree right in 200m" and one part "OMG, sheep, dodge left".

This is I’d say partially because we don’t have a HUD that can handle the bandwidth and pace of data required for rally. Overlaying a visualization of the turns ahead would be much better than a copilot for sure

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#242

Post by throwaway12345t »

This is now (more) dated. Copilots as an interface are dated. The current initiative is full agents with human in the loop at the very start, occasionally the middle and the end.

Huds are just good UI, something copilots can natively exist as part of in the form of contextual insights and alerts.

We’re moving on to agency where it’s everything else vs an entirely different entity taking the action of flying the plane from take off to landing.

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#244

Post by willtemperley »

furyofantares wrote: post #190
smolder wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I read all your dead replies and it's a little wild that you think I'm an OpenAI employee (I'm not) trying to do damage control (is the article damaging to OpenAI?) by hijacking the comments (is my comment not a HUD-like idea?). I don't really know where that's coming from, I'm just a dude who connected the idea in the article to an old idea that I haven't seen tried yet. The only thing I truly don't appreciate is yo…

The trouble with anonymous downvoting is that it fuels this kind of paranoia.

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#246

Post by brookst »

marcosdumay wrote: post #230
GuB-42 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! That's what I wanted since LLMs learned how to code. And in fact, I think I saw a paper / blog post that showed exactly this, and then... nothing. For the last few years, the tech world became crazy with code generation, with forks of VSCode hooked to LLMs worth billions of dollars and all that. But AI-based code analysis is remarkably poor. The only thing I have seen resembling this is bug report generators, w…

Just to point... > Is there something wrong with it? > Maybe such tools don't make good marketing. You had the answer the entire time :) Features that require a brain between the AI and key-presses just don't sell. Don't expect to see them for sale. (But we can still get them for free.)

I don’t think I understand your point.

Are you saying that people of a certain competence level lose interest in force-multiplying tools? I don’t think you can be saying that because there’s so much contrary evidence. So what are you saying?

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#247

Post by jachee »

brookst wrote: post #246
marcosdumay wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to point... > Is there something wrong with it? > Maybe such tools don't make good marketing. You had the answer the entire time :) Features that require a brain between the AI and key-presses just don't sell. Don't expect to see them for sale. (But we can still get them for free.)

I don’t think I understand your point. Are you saying that people of a certain competence level lose interest in force-multiplying tools? I don’t think you can be saying that because there’s so much contrary evidence. So what are you saying?

Other way around. The masses aren’t interested in force-multiplying tools. They only want to buy force-eliminating tools. They don’t want to work smarter or harder. They don’t want to work at all.

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#248

Post by jachee »

motorest wrote: post #233
marcosdumay wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you have little experience with Scrum... Acceptance criteria is a human-readable text that the person specifying the software has to write to fill-up a field in Scrum tools and not at all guide the work of the developers. It's usually derived from the description by an algorithm (that the person writing it has to run on their mind), and any deviation from that algorithm should make the person edit the descripti…

> Acceptance criteria is a human-readable text that the person specifying the software has to write (...) You're not familiar with automated testing or BDD, are you? > (...) to fill-up a field in Scrum tools (..) It seems you are confusing test management software used to tracks manual tests with actual acceptance tests. This sort of confusion would be ok 20 years ago, but it has since went the way of the dodo.

As someone quite familiar with human-run project management and Scrum, I believe parent was posting quite facetiously.

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#249

Post by galaxyLogic »

Heads-Up-Display is of course useful if it gives you useful information. But you can't tell that display "Ok fly me to Rome". That's what "co-pilot" is about. It can do things, rather than just display information it decides you might find useful.

Re: Enough AI copilots, we need AI HUDs

#250

Post by amir-h »

I love this analogy.

I've been particularly feeling like this regarding AI code reviewers recently - I don't want a copilot that will do their own review, I want a hud that will make it easier for me to understand the change.

I've been toying with crafting such a code review tool as a side project recently: https://useglide.ai

Post reply on HN