4 ms·

Will this kill all websites? Why would someone even go to WolframAlpha now if they can access it from ChatGPT and get a much better experience? Now extrapolat

by nico 4y ago

Will this kill all websites? Why would someone even go to WolframAlpha now if they can access it from ChatGPT and get a much better experience? Now extrapolate that, and ChatGPT is all you need. You will not even need photoshop, as you will be able to tell the chat agent to do what you want and re-generate the image. Will everything be a chat interface soon? Will voice then replace chat?

wahnfrieden 4y ago
No, natural language interfaces are not the end game for all UI
- MrLeap 4y ago
  Neural interfaces?
- throwaway5371 4y ago
  it will be the end of all non AI UI and by that I mean pixels drawn by AI jit
650REDHAIR 4y ago
Did you read the screenshot? It’s explaining how much gasoline or uranium a human would need to consume to survive based on caloric intake.
- nico 4y ago
  So? It would have done the same if you had used WolframAlpha directly. Garbage in -> Garbage out But ChatGPT is making it a lot easier for most people to use almost any tool directly from the chat. It’s almost like chat-based OS.
  - teawrecks 4y ago
    Wait what does GIGO have to do with it, the input and output were both reasonable.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      Maybe because the “correct” answer is zero? …for certain values of correct. If it gives totally impractical answers that seems like a problem with the asker methinks. Like, what would you do with the answer to “how many deciliters of flannel would it take to cover the earth?”
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    It seems you didn’t read the chat itself. Alpha didn’t actually say the same. It said the units for uranium and calories are incompatible. To which chat gpt merrily computed a result regardless, pointing out that while you could live on uranium for 26 years it’s toxic and radioactive and ignored the steer from alpha that it’s not just ill advised it’s impossible. I think that was their point. Alpha detected garbage in and gave an error, and Chatgpt locked all humans in matrix pods and force fed them one gram of uranium every 26 years.
- teawrecks 4y ago
  Your point seems unrelated.
burkaman 4y ago
No. Think about websites that already have chat interfaces with real people behind them. Do you ever use the chat to accomplish something when you have the option of doing it yourself instead? Do you ever use a company's "voice chat interface" (phone call) when you don't have to?
- anon7725 4y ago
  I don’t because those experiences are usually frustrating. Website chat bots give you a link to the support docs and leave you to find your answer there and company voice chat is famously limited (“agent” “Agent” “AGENT” 0 0 0 0) Seems like LLMs would be much better than those right out of the gate. I will often use “chat with a person” over “call a person” if that is offered because it’s usually easier to be precise in chat and just copy-paste order numbers or whatever.
- ChildOfChaos 4y ago
  Phone call means massive wait on hold, possible call charges and then talking to an idiot that has no idea what they are talking about. It's not the interface that is the issue, its the experience.
- janalsncm 4y ago
  I don’t think it’s fair to compare ChatGPT to those website bots. People didn’t use them because they were rarely helpful. And because people weren’t using them enough, a lot of websites implemented UX patterns to try to encourage increased use (read: annoy users).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
awb 4y ago
Here are some things that are still better via website: * Browsing * Visual layout of complex information * Interactive experiences * Recent information * Interactions with deterministic rules like non-trivial games or preserving state * Data persistence But LLMs are proving better than websites for: * Extracting information and meaning from content * Combining information from disparate sources * Complex queries * Generating content But LLMs are catching up fast
- quadcore 4y ago
  Recent information Not if you have the HN plugin for chatgpt.
  - awb 4y ago
    That’s not the entire corpus of recent information though.
    - quadcore 4y ago
      You lack imagination ;)
- meghan_rain 4y ago
  Was this generated by GPT-3.5-turbo?
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    "But LLMs are catching up fast" is not something that GPT-3.5-turbo would write IMO.
  - awb 4y ago
    No. Human generated
ChildOfChaos 4y ago
In some ways, this is what some people thought would happen when Alexa etc starting taking off, but people got bored with it when they discovered all they could do with it was sometimes get it to turn off there lights. The problem wasn't the voice interface, the issue was that the tech behind it wasn't there, now it is starting to be, I wouldn't be surprised to see these voice assistants get back into the game within the next few years.
- Magi604 4y ago
  I'm still dreaming of a Cortana-like helmet or earpiece that I can verbally communicate with any time for any reason.
dgellow 4y ago
If people stop visiting websites, how do Google Search and website owners make money? The web is currently built on advertising income, if that disappears or reduce massively, should we expect a lot of website to have to shutdown? Bing or ChatGPT would become the main way to access information, which would be an even more concentrated power than the current Google. And the only way to make money in this context would be to sell products, or provide access to a data moat via an API. That's a radical shift from the current ad-based model.
- nico 4y ago
  Very insightful. Yes, that’s one option. ChatGPT becoming like an AppStore. You pay them for usage of their interface + whatever actions/plug-ins you use. Each plugin-provider gets paid according to their usage within ChatGPT. There could also be an ad-supported version, free but you get ads or paid/commercial recommendations.
- ThorsBane 4y ago
  [dead]
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Can't wait to live in a world where ChatGPT sells stuff. We'll all be so helpless, with no idea whether the subtle advice about what to buy is the actual advice or purchased by an advertiser.
- stocknoob 4y ago
  People wouldn't just write encyclopedia articles or software for free. Explicit economic incentives are needed for all creative pursuits.
  - dgellow 4y ago
    I’m not sure if your ton is supposed to be ironic or not. I am talking about the shift from the current system (clearly ad based), towards a world where that’s not sustainable anymore. I did not say all creative output require economic incentives, that’s not something I believe to be true. I myself currently work more or less full time on my own creative projects because I like it, without consideration for economic values.
barumrho 4y ago
Hmm, one way I can see is that ChatGPT becomes a bit like the AppStore/Spotify/Netflix. Users pay for ChatGPT -> OpenAI pays plugin developers for usage. This incentivizes plugin developers to provide quality answers. Websites may still be required for full context or further interaction with the plugin developer.
JohnFen 4y ago
> Will everything be a chat interface soon? That's my personal nightmare. I hate chat interfaces for most things. > Will voice then replace chat? OK, that's even worse!
- timeon 4y ago
  I'm in the same boat especially as English is not my native language. Even if it was, words are not my domain.
gen220 4y ago
It's interesting how ChatGPT/OpenAI's relationship to Google/Bing is so similar to Google/Bing's relationship to Wikipedia.

by nico 4y ago

wahnfrieden 4y ago

No, natural language interfaces are not the end game for all UI

MrLeap 4y ago
Neural interfaces?
throwaway5371 4y ago
it will be the end of all non AI UI and by that I mean pixels drawn by AI jit

650REDHAIR 4y ago

Did you read the screenshot? It’s explaining how much gasoline or uranium a human would need to consume to survive based on caloric intake.

nico 4y ago
So? It would have done the same if you had used WolframAlpha directly. Garbage in -> Garbage out But ChatGPT is making it a lot easier for most people to use almost any tool directly from the chat. It’s almost like chat-based OS.
- teawrecks 4y ago
  Wait what does GIGO have to do with it, the input and output were both reasonable.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    Maybe because the “correct” answer is zero? …for certain values of correct. If it gives totally impractical answers that seems like a problem with the asker methinks. Like, what would you do with the answer to “how many deciliters of flannel would it take to cover the earth?”
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  It seems you didn’t read the chat itself. Alpha didn’t actually say the same. It said the units for uranium and calories are incompatible. To which chat gpt merrily computed a result regardless, pointing out that while you could live on uranium for 26 years it’s toxic and radioactive and ignored the steer from alpha that it’s not just ill advised it’s impossible. I think that was their point. Alpha detected garbage in and gave an error, and Chatgpt locked all humans in matrix pods and force fed them one gram of uranium every 26 years.
teawrecks 4y ago
Your point seems unrelated.

burkaman 4y ago

No. Think about websites that already have chat interfaces with real people behind them. Do you ever use the chat to accomplish something when you have the option of doing it yourself instead? Do you ever use a company's "voice chat interface" (phone call) when you don't have to?

anon7725 4y ago
I don’t because those experiences are usually frustrating. Website chat bots give you a link to the support docs and leave you to find your answer there and company voice chat is famously limited (“agent” “Agent” “AGENT” 0 0 0 0) Seems like LLMs would be much better than those right out of the gate. I will often use “chat with a person” over “call a person” if that is offered because it’s usually easier to be precise in chat and just copy-paste order numbers or whatever.
ChildOfChaos 4y ago
Phone call means massive wait on hold, possible call charges and then talking to an idiot that has no idea what they are talking about. It's not the interface that is the issue, its the experience.
janalsncm 4y ago
I don’t think it’s fair to compare ChatGPT to those website bots. People didn’t use them because they were rarely helpful. And because people weren’t using them enough, a lot of websites implemented UX patterns to try to encourage increased use (read: annoy users).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

awb 4y ago

Here are some things that are still better via website: * Browsing * Visual layout of complex information * Interactive experiences * Recent information * Interactions with deterministic rules like non-trivial games or preserving state * Data persistence But LLMs are proving better than websites for: * Extracting information and meaning from content * Combining information from disparate sources * Complex queries * Generating content But LLMs are catching up fast

quadcore 4y ago
Recent information Not if you have the HN plugin for chatgpt.
- awb 4y ago
  That’s not the entire corpus of recent information though.
  - quadcore 4y ago
    You lack imagination ;)
meghan_rain 4y ago
Was this generated by GPT-3.5-turbo?
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  "But LLMs are catching up fast" is not something that GPT-3.5-turbo would write IMO.
- awb 4y ago
  No. Human generated

ChildOfChaos 4y ago

In some ways, this is what some people thought would happen when Alexa etc starting taking off, but people got bored with it when they discovered all they could do with it was sometimes get it to turn off there lights. The problem wasn't the voice interface, the issue was that the tech behind it wasn't there, now it is starting to be, I wouldn't be surprised to see these voice assistants get back into the game within the next few years.

Magi604 4y ago
I'm still dreaming of a Cortana-like helmet or earpiece that I can verbally communicate with any time for any reason.

dgellow 4y ago

If people stop visiting websites, how do Google Search and website owners make money? The web is currently built on advertising income, if that disappears or reduce massively, should we expect a lot of website to have to shutdown? Bing or ChatGPT would become the main way to access information, which would be an even more concentrated power than the current Google. And the only way to make money in this context would be to sell products, or provide access to a data moat via an API. That's a radical shift from the current ad-based model.

nico 4y ago
Very insightful. Yes, that’s one option. ChatGPT becoming like an AppStore. You pay them for usage of their interface + whatever actions/plug-ins you use. Each plugin-provider gets paid according to their usage within ChatGPT. There could also be an ad-supported version, free but you get ads or paid/commercial recommendations.
ThorsBane 4y ago
[dead]
lordnacho 4y ago
Can't wait to live in a world where ChatGPT sells stuff. We'll all be so helpless, with no idea whether the subtle advice about what to buy is the actual advice or purchased by an advertiser.
stocknoob 4y ago
People wouldn't just write encyclopedia articles or software for free. Explicit economic incentives are needed for all creative pursuits.
- dgellow 4y ago
  I’m not sure if your ton is supposed to be ironic or not. I am talking about the shift from the current system (clearly ad based), towards a world where that’s not sustainable anymore. I did not say all creative output require economic incentives, that’s not something I believe to be true. I myself currently work more or less full time on my own creative projects because I like it, without consideration for economic values.

barumrho 4y ago

Hmm, one way I can see is that ChatGPT becomes a bit like the AppStore/Spotify/Netflix. Users pay for ChatGPT -> OpenAI pays plugin developers for usage. This incentivizes plugin developers to provide quality answers. Websites may still be required for full context or further interaction with the plugin developer.

JohnFen 4y ago

> Will everything be a chat interface soon? That's my personal nightmare. I hate chat interfaces for most things. > Will voice then replace chat? OK, that's even worse!

timeon 4y ago
I'm in the same boat especially as English is not my native language. Even if it was, words are not my domain.

gen220 4y ago

It's interesting how ChatGPT/OpenAI's relationship to Google/Bing is so similar to Google/Bing's relationship to Wikipedia.