5 ms·

I think, long term, apps will disappear and we will get APIs and algorithms that are controlled by an AI engine. Apps are data silos that prevent an AI from doi

I think, long term, apps will disappear and we will get APIs and algorithms that are controlled by an AI engine. Apps are data silos that prevent an AI from doing the things it could. You should be able to tell the AI engine something like "as soon as the weather forecast predicts snow, order a snow blower from Amazon". The AI can only do this if it has access to weather data and an API from Amazon it can control to get you the snow blower. It should also be able to check your calendar, because you can't accept the delivery if you are on vacation. Apps are silos that prevents the AI from doing these things. At best the AI could use the equivalent of screen scraping to use existing apps, but eventually all apps should be replaced by APIs that just extend the capabilities of the AI engine. And what about GUIs? I think they will be pretty irrelevant. The AI engine should be able to render your data any way you want. Think Dall-E. There will certainly be designs to chose from, but you should be able to customize them any way you want ("remove that italic button, I never need it").

midoridensha 4y ago
This is really wishful thinking. >At best the AI could use the equivalent of screen scraping to use existing apps, but eventually all apps should be replaced by APIs that just extend the capabilities of the AI engine. Why would companies want to expose APIs in this manner? Instead, they can force you to access them only through their app, and that way they can force you to sit through advertising, and otherwise control how you see the information and how you're allowed to interact with it. Open APIs cut them out of a lot of profits. >You should be able to tell the AI engine something like "as soon as the weather forecast predicts snow, order a snow blower from Amazon". This is crazy: this way, someone could just have their AI do these tasks in an automated way, without paying some company for the privilege. Instead, what we need is an app that's the only way to access these APIs, and the app will give you ways to set up automation, but only in the ways the company wants you to, and poorly. Then they can charge you a monthly subscription fee for access to this automation app, and also embed annoying advertising in it.
- tjansen 4y ago
  > Why would companies want to expose APIs in this manner? They don't. But why would record companies want to license their music to streaming services instead of selling CDs? If the AI is there, and it offers a superior experience to users, the companies that don't support it will disappear. > this way, someone could just have their AI do these tasks in an automated way, without paying some company for the privilege. You're assuming that APIs need to be free, but that doesn't need to be the case. Companies that provide data will need to charge for that, just like record companies charge Spotify when you stream music. Companies that provide a service (Amazon, Uber etc) won't be happy that they lose marketing opportunities and brand recognition, but again, if the user experience is superior to the old app ways, those companies that don't adapt will die.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >If the AI is there, and it offers a superior experience to users, the companies that don't support it will disappear. For that to happen, the AI needs to already be working. If the companies proactively prevent this from happening, then users won't have any basis for comparison. Closed APIs will prevent them from having the ability to program their own AI to do these things. >You're assuming that APIs need to be free, but that doesn't need to be the case. Companies that provide data will need to charge for that, just like record companies charge Spotify when you stream music. Sure, companies could require you to have a subscription to access the API, but they can make more money by controlling the experience instead of just giving you (paid) access to the API. >Companies that provide a service (Amazon, Uber etc) won't be happy that they lose marketing opportunities and brand recognition, Yes, this is exactly my point. >but again, if the user experience is superior to the old app ways, those companies that don't adapt will die. Users won't easily go backwards to proprietary access when they're used to (more) open access to something, but this isn't the case in this scenario: the users haven't had easy access to APIs before in a way that a regular person can just, for instance, give a voice command to their system saying "when the weather is like this, do these things with these various services", so they don't know what they're missing. The services already control the experience, and will want to keep it that way.
Gys 4y ago
A voice interface makes much sense in a world were everybody wears augmented reality glasses. Manual input will be difficult and focussing on text or complicated graphics also.
- tjansen 4y ago
  I think it will be mixed, using both pointing device or touch screen, and voice. Some things are easier with a pointing device. For example, when browsing the web, I could rather touch or click on a link than saying it out loud. But other things are too complicated for a UI. Like saying "please use the photo I took of that dolphin last weekend as background" is much easier than finding the option to change the background, finding the dolphin photo and then selecting it.
phoe-krk 4y ago
> Apps are data silos that prevent an AI from doing the things it could. If you're a company, that's not a bug, that's a feature. Data is your asset and releasing it for free is almost always a net loss.
- tjansen 4y ago
  It doesn't need to be free, but companies will need to adapt. I don't think there will be apps in 30 years.
- Gys 4y ago
  Why would it suddenly be for free? One would probably pay for using data or API. Actually one more way towards few companies controlling the internet. Because having an agreement with one supplier is more easy then contracts with many.
BerislavLopac 4y ago
> You should be able to tell the AI engine something like "as soon as the weather forecast predicts snow, order a snow blower from Amazon". There is absolutely nothing in the above declaration that requires an AI.
- tjansen 4y ago
  I think the translation from human speech to something a computer can execute already qualifies as AI. But there are a lot of other things that need to be considered, if the AI aims to be the equivalent of a human assistant. It needs to determine how much snow requires a snow blower (a smart AI wouldn't buy for a couple of snow flakes), to guess what model of snow blower the user would want (which may involve checking the users' finances, brand preferences and it may ask how much space is available in the garage) and to determine what else needs to be checked, like vacations. It would also need to figure out the right time to order, because it should arrive before it is needed.
  - BerislavLopac 4y ago
    Those are all fair points - but if the AI "aims to be the equivalent of a human assistant", that requires interaction; a human assistant will ask question to understand the request if it is not clear. I think that the goal of having an AI "magically" figure these things out on its own is a fantasy.
    - tjansen 4y ago
      Yes, it definitely needs interaction if the user did not define preferences in earlier conversations.

midoridensha 4y ago

This is really wishful thinking. >At best the AI could use the equivalent of screen scraping to use existing apps, but eventually all apps should be replaced by APIs that just extend the capabilities of the AI engine. Why would companies want to expose APIs in this manner? Instead, they can force you to access them only through their app, and that way they can force you to sit through advertising, and otherwise control how you see the information and how you're allowed to interact with it. Open APIs cut them out of a lot of profits. >You should be able to tell the AI engine something like "as soon as the weather forecast predicts snow, order a snow blower from Amazon". This is crazy: this way, someone could just have their AI do these tasks in an automated way, without paying some company for the privilege. Instead, what we need is an app that's the only way to access these APIs, and the app will give you ways to set up automation, but only in the ways the company wants you to, and poorly. Then they can charge you a monthly subscription fee for access to this automation app, and also embed annoying advertising in it.

tjansen 4y ago
> Why would companies want to expose APIs in this manner? They don't. But why would record companies want to license their music to streaming services instead of selling CDs? If the AI is there, and it offers a superior experience to users, the companies that don't support it will disappear. > this way, someone could just have their AI do these tasks in an automated way, without paying some company for the privilege. You're assuming that APIs need to be free, but that doesn't need to be the case. Companies that provide data will need to charge for that, just like record companies charge Spotify when you stream music. Companies that provide a service (Amazon, Uber etc) won't be happy that they lose marketing opportunities and brand recognition, but again, if the user experience is superior to the old app ways, those companies that don't adapt will die.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >If the AI is there, and it offers a superior experience to users, the companies that don't support it will disappear. For that to happen, the AI needs to already be working. If the companies proactively prevent this from happening, then users won't have any basis for comparison. Closed APIs will prevent them from having the ability to program their own AI to do these things. >You're assuming that APIs need to be free, but that doesn't need to be the case. Companies that provide data will need to charge for that, just like record companies charge Spotify when you stream music. Sure, companies could require you to have a subscription to access the API, but they can make more money by controlling the experience instead of just giving you (paid) access to the API. >Companies that provide a service (Amazon, Uber etc) won't be happy that they lose marketing opportunities and brand recognition, Yes, this is exactly my point. >but again, if the user experience is superior to the old app ways, those companies that don't adapt will die. Users won't easily go backwards to proprietary access when they're used to (more) open access to something, but this isn't the case in this scenario: the users haven't had easy access to APIs before in a way that a regular person can just, for instance, give a voice command to their system saying "when the weather is like this, do these things with these various services", so they don't know what they're missing. The services already control the experience, and will want to keep it that way.

Gys 4y ago

A voice interface makes much sense in a world were everybody wears augmented reality glasses. Manual input will be difficult and focussing on text or complicated graphics also.

tjansen 4y ago
I think it will be mixed, using both pointing device or touch screen, and voice. Some things are easier with a pointing device. For example, when browsing the web, I could rather touch or click on a link than saying it out loud. But other things are too complicated for a UI. Like saying "please use the photo I took of that dolphin last weekend as background" is much easier than finding the option to change the background, finding the dolphin photo and then selecting it.

phoe-krk 4y ago

> Apps are data silos that prevent an AI from doing the things it could. If you're a company, that's not a bug, that's a feature. Data is your asset and releasing it for free is almost always a net loss.

tjansen 4y ago
It doesn't need to be free, but companies will need to adapt. I don't think there will be apps in 30 years.
Gys 4y ago
Why would it suddenly be for free? One would probably pay for using data or API. Actually one more way towards few companies controlling the internet. Because having an agreement with one supplier is more easy then contracts with many.

BerislavLopac 4y ago

> You should be able to tell the AI engine something like "as soon as the weather forecast predicts snow, order a snow blower from Amazon". There is absolutely nothing in the above declaration that requires an AI.

tjansen 4y ago
I think the translation from human speech to something a computer can execute already qualifies as AI. But there are a lot of other things that need to be considered, if the AI aims to be the equivalent of a human assistant. It needs to determine how much snow requires a snow blower (a smart AI wouldn't buy for a couple of snow flakes), to guess what model of snow blower the user would want (which may involve checking the users' finances, brand preferences and it may ask how much space is available in the garage) and to determine what else needs to be checked, like vacations. It would also need to figure out the right time to order, because it should arrive before it is needed.
- BerislavLopac 4y ago
  Those are all fair points - but if the AI "aims to be the equivalent of a human assistant", that requires interaction; a human assistant will ask question to understand the request if it is not clear. I think that the goal of having an AI "magically" figure these things out on its own is a fantasy.
  - tjansen 4y ago
    Yes, it definitely needs interaction if the user did not define preferences in earlier conversations.