> After you figure out how to access gpt-4 properly, it mostly boils down to knowing what to ask and actually thinking of asking it to begin with. Agreed, but

> After you figure out how to access gpt-4 properly, it mostly boils down to knowing what to ask and actually thinking of asking it to begin with. Agreed, but I don't think this goes broad or deep enough, particularly with respect to the power of iteration and recursion in conversation: the basics of reflection over prior action. The key here is to realize that there's a natural sensemaking process that goes from action to reflection to repetition and that sensemaking process is a collaboration between computer agents and human agents whether it remains implicit or explicit in design and whether the computer agent is programmed to recognize and resolve conflict and consensus in not just subjective but objective fact-or-fiction. Right now, we aren't even at the latter, let alone the former. That will come with time and acceptance of the veracity problem that is writ large in the AI UX currently. > it mostly boils down to knowing what to ask and actually thinking of asking it to begin with. Indeed, recognition vs. recall is as old as GUI vs. CLI. However, the key is to realize that some folks will be faster through recall because they've actually built up the knowledge to recall vs the symbolism to recognize. My argument is that, for me, there's little value in chat because that's not how I prefer to interact with any human or computer agent via writing. It's too slow. I much prefer the batch mode where there is larger latency between question and answer, but that latency provides an emergent cadence to the conversation that is more natural, providing room for listening-and-thought-before-response. This may sound old-fashioned like punch cards, but conversation has been missing from many technical things for years and we've paid the price for that silence.