4 ms·

I'm a UX designer and I'm also learning as much as I can about AI, working through courses from Jeremy Howard and Andrej Kaparthy, amongst others. This articl

I'm a UX designer and I'm also learning as much as I can about AI, working through courses from Jeremy Howard and Andrej Kaparthy, amongst others. This article is absolute nonsense and I'd expect more from N/N, which I usually respect. Not only does it forget everything about good UX, it also shows a lack of understanding of AI, how it works and where it's useful, treating it like some magic fairy dust that can be sprinkled about and magically solve all problems. A system that completely reconfigures itself based on what it predicts that particular might want, based on biased or incomplete data, sounds like a terrible idea. Support alone would be a nightmare – if the interface changes for each customer, do the guides and videos also change? How would customer support know what the user's looking at? However, I do like the idea of being able to tell a system the result you want, then it showing you the best way to achieve it. For example, few people go to an appliance website to look at washing machines for fun. They go because they want clean socks. A system that could help them find the right machine to clean their particular socks quickly might be valuable. Generative UX sounds fancy but falls apart at the slightest bit of actual thought.

madsbuch 3y ago
I think it would be productive for you to focus on other sources to learn about AI. You are probably better of looking at what people achieve using LLMs and prompting instead of focusing on the fundamentals of probability theory. > A system that completely reconfigures itself based on what it predicts that particular might want, based on biased or incomplete data, sounds like a terrible idea. This sentence shows a quite off understanding of the AI developments for this type of applications. This would be the same as saying that ChatGPT is entirely useless as each character is responds is merely chosen from a probability distribution of the previous characters. While the assessment is technically correct, it diminishes the fact ath it has huge value. I also see that you have a lot of concerns by trying to predict how this affects other parts of a product (customer support, etc.). While I understand that this type of uncertainty is uncomfortable these things usually fan out alright (or at least profitable). A comment like this sound like an 70s postman who says that electronic "internet" would never work because people would not be able to communicate with the rigour of handwritten letters. I am not saying that this article is right or wrong. I merely say that a bit of curiosity would be beneficial when assessing new ideas - that can also be the difference of being in or out of the job market in 4 years.

madsbuch 3y ago

I think it would be productive for you to focus on other sources to learn about AI. You are probably better of looking at what people achieve using LLMs and prompting instead of focusing on the fundamentals of probability theory. > A system that completely reconfigures itself based on what it predicts that particular might want, based on biased or incomplete data, sounds like a terrible idea. This sentence shows a quite off understanding of the AI developments for this type of applications. This would be the same as saying that ChatGPT is entirely useless as each character is responds is merely chosen from a probability distribution of the previous characters. While the assessment is technically correct, it diminishes the fact ath it has huge value. I also see that you have a lot of concerns by trying to predict how this affects other parts of a product (customer support, etc.). While I understand that this type of uncertainty is uncomfortable these things usually fan out alright (or at least profitable). A comment like this sound like an 70s postman who says that electronic "internet" would never work because people would not be able to communicate with the rigour of handwritten letters. I am not saying that this article is right or wrong. I merely say that a bit of curiosity would be beneficial when assessing new ideas - that can also be the difference of being in or out of the job market in 4 years.