5 ms·

I think the bigger question is: why would I want to converse with software? Is that actually a good interface? People imagine the computer from star trek, but t

I think the bigger question is: why would I want to converse with software? Is that actually a good interface? People imagine the computer from star trek, but that was a plot device. The character was talking to the viewer with the computer as a proxy.

faitswulff 11y ago
It's easy to imagine a large proportion of the population wanting to use natural language to achieve complex technical tasks. It is, after all, the same API that people use with each other. Someone could then describe what they want out of a spreadsheet instead of manually editing it. What interface would you prefer?
- mmm123456789 11y ago
  I just built a very rudimentary version of this "speak to spreadsheet" idea: https://github.com/diesendruck/ggspeak https://github.com/diesendruck/ggspeak Or for the demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtrGxVvVyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtrGxVvVyg If you're interested in working on it together, get in touch.
- cinquemb 11y ago
  >It's easy to imagine a large proportion of the population wanting to use natural language to achieve complex technical tasks. It is, after all, the same API that people use with each other. True, and this api will be deprecated for those who want more efficient means of communication in the future and willing to work towards it. >What interface would you prefer? EM fluctuations in real time of the neurons in my body to machine code via trillions of nano sensors/transmitters/stimulators. Vocal cords and limbs need not apply… will be way more intuitive than "natural language".
- pjc50 11y ago
  the same API that people use with each other Have you ever tried to do a "complex technical task" by directing an unskilled person over the phone? It's a tremendously frustrating experience. Natural language alone isn't useful without your interlocutor having enough understanding of the problem domain to work out what you mean and help you. So a natural language interface to the spreadsheet would have to be on the level of "perform linear regression on these sales figures" in order to be more useful than mere speech-to-text.
- overgard 11y ago
  Yes and no. We have a lot of ways of communicating with each other and talking is only one of many. For instance, if I want to formally request something I'd put it in writing -- I want there to be a reference document that all interested parties can go back to. Likewise if I need a building, we might have a conversation about what we want, but the most important communication is the blueprint. If I'm making a blueprint, it's a lot quicker to put pen to paper than it is to tell another person where to put the lines. I think software is inventing a lot of new ways to communicate with each other, and that's a pretty awesome thing; I just think speech is a very inefficient and imprecise way to communicate things, and efficiency and precision are what you really want when dealing with a computer.
imh 11y ago
It's easy to think about interacting with a computer as a programmer, but "Computer, when does the next star wars movie come out?" is much easier for most people than "SELECT release_date FROM ...". Unstructured language is just super accessible to more people. Everyone knows it already! It's not just about conversation, but conversation towards tasks.
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  That and other examples like "Call me an Uber" [0] are already relatively simple tasks, and adding voice interaction doesn't really add much to it. Is this going to be the next wave of smart devices, instead of an app you talk to your washing machine? Ok it's not necessarily a bad thing (especially in terms of accessibility - plus nobody even knows which setting they should use [1]), but I don't think this is what OP is hinting at. Say you are working in HR "How many staff took a greater than average sick days around holiday weekends?", for that task what does voice interaction provide over a report, which can even be automatically generated and delivered for when you arrive at 9:03am. [0] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/403524037/autonomous-desk-the-smartest-office-desk-yet-power https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/403524037/autonomous-de... [1] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P53Bde2yq5E/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P53Bde2yq5E/maxresdefault.jpg
- overgard 11y ago
  Just keeping the star trek metaphor going (nerd alert!); I remember there's this episode where counselor troi asks the computer to "cross-reference" entries on darmok, or something like that (1980s version of google basically). The computer comes back with like 47 entries the computer reads back one by one and she gives up in disgust after like three! On the other hand, if that was on a screen that she could quickly just scan, 47 entries is nothing, and when you google stuff you're probably adding or removing search terms randomly to narrow down on exactly what you want. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a voice interface, I just never see it being anything more than a secondary convenience.
  - imh 11y ago
    That's exactly what a hypothetical conversational interface would do that a simple voice interface couldn't. It's the level 3 the article was talking about. If the computer responds "There are 47 entries," you might say "Do any of them contain the word tanagra?" or "Get me the most recent one."
skewart 11y ago
I agree. That is the much bigger question. Texting with software has a huge novelty factor for many people, but it remains to be seen if it's actually more useful. GUIs offer a lot of great short cuts that are simply faster to visually read and interact with than reading text and typing - or even saying - a response. I think there are aspects of chat bots that really do offer a new and better user experience, but they're not necessarily the ones being highlighted in demos. Asynchronous interaction with an interface for potentially long-running tasks is wonderful. I can tell an app to, say, find a list of hotels I might like in Argentina and then flip to another app knowing that I'll be notifieda few seconds later when the response is ready. The way forward may be a hybrid interface, where bots can respond with messages that are little mini GUIs. There might be photos to scroll through and a few buttons to click. FB showed off a feature like this at F8 today. Ultimately what would make a bot a really improved experience is if it knows you really well, but that doesn't imply a conversational interface. If you could say "make dinner reservations for tonight" and trust the bot would find the perfect place that would be awesome. That's hard. And it has nothing to do with chat bots per se, just a much better recommendation engine.

faitswulff 11y ago

It's easy to imagine a large proportion of the population wanting to use natural language to achieve complex technical tasks. It is, after all, the same API that people use with each other. Someone could then describe what they want out of a spreadsheet instead of manually editing it. What interface would you prefer?

mmm123456789 11y ago
I just built a very rudimentary version of this "speak to spreadsheet" idea: https://github.com/diesendruck/ggspeak https://github.com/diesendruck/ggspeak Or for the demo video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtrGxVvVyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtrGxVvVyg If you're interested in working on it together, get in touch.
cinquemb 11y ago
>It's easy to imagine a large proportion of the population wanting to use natural language to achieve complex technical tasks. It is, after all, the same API that people use with each other. True, and this api will be deprecated for those who want more efficient means of communication in the future and willing to work towards it. >What interface would you prefer? EM fluctuations in real time of the neurons in my body to machine code via trillions of nano sensors/transmitters/stimulators. Vocal cords and limbs need not apply… will be way more intuitive than "natural language".
pjc50 11y ago
the same API that people use with each other Have you ever tried to do a "complex technical task" by directing an unskilled person over the phone? It's a tremendously frustrating experience. Natural language alone isn't useful without your interlocutor having enough understanding of the problem domain to work out what you mean and help you. So a natural language interface to the spreadsheet would have to be on the level of "perform linear regression on these sales figures" in order to be more useful than mere speech-to-text.
overgard 11y ago
Yes and no. We have a lot of ways of communicating with each other and talking is only one of many. For instance, if I want to formally request something I'd put it in writing -- I want there to be a reference document that all interested parties can go back to. Likewise if I need a building, we might have a conversation about what we want, but the most important communication is the blueprint. If I'm making a blueprint, it's a lot quicker to put pen to paper than it is to tell another person where to put the lines. I think software is inventing a lot of new ways to communicate with each other, and that's a pretty awesome thing; I just think speech is a very inefficient and imprecise way to communicate things, and efficiency and precision are what you really want when dealing with a computer.

imh 11y ago

It's easy to think about interacting with a computer as a programmer, but "Computer, when does the next star wars movie come out?" is much easier for most people than "SELECT release_date FROM ...". Unstructured language is just super accessible to more people. Everyone knows it already! It's not just about conversation, but conversation towards tasks.

lucaspiller 11y ago
That and other examples like "Call me an Uber" [0] are already relatively simple tasks, and adding voice interaction doesn't really add much to it. Is this going to be the next wave of smart devices, instead of an app you talk to your washing machine? Ok it's not necessarily a bad thing (especially in terms of accessibility - plus nobody even knows which setting they should use [1]), but I don't think this is what OP is hinting at. Say you are working in HR "How many staff took a greater than average sick days around holiday weekends?", for that task what does voice interaction provide over a report, which can even be automatically generated and delivered for when you arrive at 9:03am. [0] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/403524037/autonomous-desk-the-smartest-office-desk-yet-power https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/403524037/autonomous-de... [1] https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P53Bde2yq5E/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P53Bde2yq5E/maxresdefault.jpg
overgard 11y ago
Just keeping the star trek metaphor going (nerd alert!); I remember there's this episode where counselor troi asks the computer to "cross-reference" entries on darmok, or something like that (1980s version of google basically). The computer comes back with like 47 entries the computer reads back one by one and she gives up in disgust after like three! On the other hand, if that was on a screen that she could quickly just scan, 47 entries is nothing, and when you google stuff you're probably adding or removing search terms randomly to narrow down on exactly what you want. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a voice interface, I just never see it being anything more than a secondary convenience.
- imh 11y ago
  That's exactly what a hypothetical conversational interface would do that a simple voice interface couldn't. It's the level 3 the article was talking about. If the computer responds "There are 47 entries," you might say "Do any of them contain the word tanagra?" or "Get me the most recent one."

skewart 11y ago

I agree. That is the much bigger question. Texting with software has a huge novelty factor for many people, but it remains to be seen if it's actually more useful. GUIs offer a lot of great short cuts that are simply faster to visually read and interact with than reading text and typing - or even saying - a response. I think there are aspects of chat bots that really do offer a new and better user experience, but they're not necessarily the ones being highlighted in demos. Asynchronous interaction with an interface for potentially long-running tasks is wonderful. I can tell an app to, say, find a list of hotels I might like in Argentina and then flip to another app knowing that I'll be notifieda few seconds later when the response is ready. The way forward may be a hybrid interface, where bots can respond with messages that are little mini GUIs. There might be photos to scroll through and a few buttons to click. FB showed off a feature like this at F8 today. Ultimately what would make a bot a really improved experience is if it knows you really well, but that doesn't imply a conversational interface. If you could say "make dinner reservations for tonight" and trust the bot would find the perfect place that would be awesome. That's hard. And it has nothing to do with chat bots per se, just a much better recommendation engine.