Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A simple example might be the problem of "pick a color". People still underestimate the power of LLMs. You ask it to show you a color picker, it generates HTML code for a color picker, you copy that into your browser and you can pick your color, which you can then copy&paste back into the LLM for further processing. This already works and no human had to code a color picker into ChatGPT for this (and this is why LL…
> You ask it to show you a color picker, it generates HTML code for a color picker, you copy that into your browser and you can pick your color, which you can then copy&paste back into the LLM for further processing. This is slower, more awkward, and less efficient than just picking a colour from an existing colour picker.
Natural language is an unnatural interface
61–70 of 94 posts
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. I think posts/articles/etc related to replacement of Software Engineering jobs to AI are exaggerated and probably driven by jealousy or sadism. Just ignore those and move on. (It was very depressing to believe that Software Engineers will lose jobs)
Views. I'm inundated with AI content but most of it lacks any substance. It's mostly "wow GPT is really dumb and can't behave like this supergod AGI I just made up" to "wow GPT will take over all our jobs in 3 years, it's so powerful".
Perhaps worse than the vacillation between getting terrible answers and great answers: When you simply can't tell which kind of answer it is, not until you've sunk a bunch of effort validating or implementing it. (Perhaps finding that the system invented some core fake APIs, non-existent citations, or algebra errors.)
Almost an echo of P/NP categorizations: It's tough when the effort of fully verifying a proposed answer is too close to the effort of just solving it normally.
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#63First of all, ChatGTP implies by its name that it's designed to chat. It's a sophisticated chatbot, but a chatbox nonetheless, you are not going to have a chat by filling a form. Then the examples given for StableDiffusion are not natural language. In this case, there can probably be a better interface than a single textbox, but the issue is the textbox, not that it expects natural language (it doesn't).
Other types of interface for AI stuff do exist. Copilot is also an LLM, but it takes surrounding code as input, not a natural language prompt. Plenty (most) of models take whatever format is convenient for the task and output an adapted format (image/video/text classification, feature detection...).
On the other hand, there are some interfaces that force natural language processing where it is one of the most unnatural and ineffective option, and no AI whatsoever is involved. Anyone who ever tried to book a train ticket in France in the past couple of years know what I mean[0]. Having to spell out an itinerary and date information is very, very confusing and error prone.
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best voice assistant I ever had was the one I DIY-ed around 2007, using Microsoft Speech API and a cheap piezoelectric mike I soldered to a long cable, hung off the wardrobe, and plugged into PC. The code itself was a mashup of MS SAPI demo of "controlled language" interface and some tutorials for how to control WinAMP with WM_USER messages in WinAPI. I designed a little tree of commands, maybe 3 level deep, wrot…
Cool project! Just to chime a bit into the topic at hand, I guess part of the reason why our experiences with our self-made creations were overly positive is that we were familiar with what could it do, and what were the “magic prompts” for achieving that. Today’s systems are expected to handle a much more diverse input space (though with LLMs it should be absolutely feasible). My experience with siri’s “hey siri” re…
That's the thing though: in my system, there were no "magic prompts". What Speech API gave me, instead, is the ability to use "controlled language" - constrain the set of possible words at any given moment. That, and as a user, to train the living hell out of them in Windows settings.
Yes, today's systems "are expected to handle a much more diverse input space". But maybe they shouldn't be, since they all seem to suck at it. My knowledge of Siri, Alexa and Cortana is purely anecdotal (don't have devices with the first two, somehow was always region-locked-out of the last one), but I have first-hand experience with Google and Samsung assistants and dictation tools. And that experience is really, really bad. Neither can understand me very well in English, even if I try to speak very carefully. Both get randomly triggered (sometimes resulting in funny situations - like the GA on my mom's phone self-triggering while she had it in her jacket, and before she fished it out of the pocket, the assistant managed to misinterpret some overheard conversation and apologize for perhaps being annoying). There's no obvious way for me to calibrate them for my voice. Both run recognition in the cloud, making any attempted conversation slow and annoying. And despite claims to the contrary, Google Assistant can't handle multiple languages - not just in a single voice query, but even across separate sessions. Whenever I try, I have it randomly decide to either parse Polish as English, or unilaterally decide to switch languages, changing its own response language and voice, and then fail trying to parse English as Polish.
I could list more and more bad experiences, but my overall point is: while I recognize different and broader challenges current voice assistants face, my little teenage evening project from 15 years ago serves as a POC, demonstrating that 2007-era tech could handle 90+% of my use cases[0] for voice assistant flawlessly, much faster, and offline. Surely there must be some middle ground somewhere.
--
[0] - Really, all it would take is to expand my command language grammar XML file with a couple extra subtrees for other topics, such as timers or system settings. Remaining that much back in 2007, but even if it failed completely, the totality would still be way more useful than Google Assistant is to me today.
False positives matter a lot in this use case: most of my anger at Google Assistant is less about it not understanding me >50% of the time - it's mostly about how more than 50% of misunderstandings cause it to loudly read out long texts, call a random contact, or launch a random YouTube video.
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#65> Natural language is an unnatural interface
However, I think the title is misleading. Maybe I am too much of a technical person and take interface too broadly. But natural language is probably the most natural interface as humans learn this really early and use it every day.
Also, the word "natural" may not be suitable for this discussion. Maybe the author has this in mind already but I think we should rather talk about intuitive, efficient, motivating, … interfaces.
In general, I guess HCI is not about natural but rather useful.
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#66Reminds me of the boom in voice assistants, when we were told it was the interface of the future. I’d ask my Google Home what the temperature was going to be today. It would tell me. I’d ask what the temperature was yesterday. It would tell me it didn’t understand the question. ChatGPT etc obviously aren’t quite that bad but the core problem remains discoverability. It isn’t at all clear what these interfaces can and…
> It isn’t at all clear what these interfaces can and cannot do, all you can do is keep trying different things until you get a result.
You would ask an LLM based assistant what it can do, in the same way you can ask ChatGPT what it can do.
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet this is how we communicate with designers and end up with good results.
I don't think they see it the same way. At least not given that instructions in the style GP mentions: > Instead of just seeing the entire palette and choosing, you need to say "I want a gold color", "lighter than that" and "darker" and "less like urine" etc. have meme status among designers, and not in a positive way. Some years ago, when I hanged out with a couple designers, I was introduced to Facebook groups exch…
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that confuses doing versus delegating . Delegation is easy to do via a text-box, because you're just kicking the interactive complexity-can down the road to someone else, often in a way which can be problematic even with actual humans. For example, a project-manager or executive could verbally delegate "make a new registration page for the site" and "needs more rounded corners", either to an AI or to an emplo…
> I think that confuses doing versus delegating. This is exactly it, thanks for putting it down clearly. Which is also why news of the death of programming as a profession are greatly exagerated. You're not being paid to write code, you're being paid to make decisions. Code is easy, or at least much easier than natural language.
Most of the time, what is being asked for, on its face, is not what is actually wanted, not as simple as spelled out, has some A-B tradeoffs to decide, or maybe not worth it given the side effects.
If a developer isn't asking multiple questions per feature, they deserve to be replaced by an LLM.
Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#69Re: Natural language is an unnatural interface
#70"There is nothing, I repeat nothing, more intimidating than an empty text box staring you in the face." Talk about a hyperbolic opening line. Is it really that intimidating to have an empty text box on Whatsapp or your favorite SMS app? No, as you expect to have an appropriate response coming from the other side, pretty much regardless of what your input is. As a frequent user of ChatGPT, I've come to expect the same…