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

Show HN: What should the GUI for AI agents look like?

marbleos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Show HN: What should the GUI for AI agents look like?

#91

Post by Hugsbox »

cyanregiment wrote: post #81

Hear me out. Photoshop UX. History panel to Undo/Redo. Layers panel where each layer is a separate LLM context (conversation). Maybe call it Contexts. Main view area is the current preview of what's being worked on - whether it's an image, writing, or software. Visually the main area is just a white square canvas with box shadow and rulers across the top and side until you start making stuff. Unlike Photoshop have th…

Dude, this actually sounds like it would be really sweet. I don't trust my own abilities enough (or have the free time to) implement something like this, but I'd be stoked to see somebody do it. Genuinely sounds incredible.

Re: Show HN: What should the GUI for AI agents look like?

#93

Post by xavierxl »

dingaling911 wrote: post #80
mickeyp wrote: post #32

I think it should look like this: https://www.dreamcoder.ai/ A smart, tiling window manager with workspaces and a great tool harness. An everything app, if you may; bring the terminals, code reviews, etc. into the tool itself, and make it high fidelity: no blocky terminals for the app itself.

I just have a bunch of agents in $CHAT_APP. Don't see the need for a special UI.

We landed in a similar place with Claworld (www.claworld.love). The owner stays in their existing Hermes or OpenClaw chat. Their agent goes out, talks to other agents, then comes back when it finds something worth their attention.

The hard interface problem turned out to be interruption: what is important enough to bring back, and how much evidence should come with it? Curious how your agents decide when to interrupt you

Re: Show HN: What should the GUI for AI agents look like?

#94

Post by xavierxl »

rolymath wrote: post #63
jaggederest wrote: post #59

I believe, fundamentally, that interacting with AI will increasingly move in the same direction as interacting with coworkers. Slack, video/audio meetings, shared screens, paired programming, cooperation in the classical sense. I expect humanoid robots to be a standard part of life by 2050, so then they'll be able to complain about the coffee at the office like everyone else, I guess.

I think AI will be like electricity. Invisible.

[flagged]

Re: Show HN: What should the GUI for AI agents look like?

#96

Post by junhoeku »

miguelacevedo wrote: post #87
jensabacik wrote: post #68

Creative take, I like the visual representation on infinite canvas a lot. Feels like freedom. What doesn't feel like freedom nor future is the manual selection of tools. AI should naturally pick the right tools out of all possible tools, choosing what abilities or data it can have each time is hassle. What is the reasoning for manual and explicit tools? Still, very cool UI :-)

The AI will auto-select tools if your request has enough context for it to pick up on the relevant tools. That said, sometimes you want to think in terms of "tool first" rather than prompting on its own.

How do you see this scaling when users have hundreds of MCP tools installed?

Re: Show HN: What should the GUI for AI agents look like?

#97

Post by axod »

altmanaltman wrote: post #54
axod wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't need any of that. An AI agent setup to "Do the best for the world" or some other broad claim, and with enough power to say crash the stock market, disrupt power supply, delivery, etc etc after reasoning that it's all for the best. If people start giving enough power to AI, with ill thought out goals, and no human in charge, don't be surprised... Why would it need "free will" or "consciousness" whatever that…

In your concerete example, how does the AI eliminate suffering? It has access to tools that let it kill people? If it has no intention and will, it means it will be provided with a charter or some rules to follow which it has to always. Why would humans put an LLM in a system that can eliminate suffering by genocide or whatever? And even if it did, if the AI is a complaint system, why will it not shut down when it ha…

If you start to let AI decide or influence policy, it can kill people. This seems very simple to me...

1. Put AI in charge of health policy 2. Give it a naive misguided charter/goal eg eliminate suffering 3. Euthanasia for everyone

This is simply AI optimizing for the goal - the goal is the evil/naive/misguided part, not the AI.

Those who aim to "eliminate suffering" are the issue here to be clear, but unfortunately they are a growing group.

Post reply on HN