4 ms·

"Giving order to one's assistant" is a class of interaction that some people desperately want, and I expect we'll see these kind of devices being made until i

"Giving order to one's assistant" is a class of interaction that some people desperately want, and I expect we'll see these kind of devices being made until it works, even if it's in two decades from now. Fundamentally it's the model of the boss giving orders to its secretary, and people dream of it as some pinnacle of evolution (perhaps it is, I don't have a paid secretary to assess the point). That's actually pretty close to the concierge services offered by phone for instance, and some people with enough money seem to enjoy it, so why not (try to replicate it, even if it miserably fails for a while) ?

TaylorAlexander 2y ago
Yes it’s a very hierarchical way of thinking. I’d much rather imagine a world with more collaboration between peers than every person having a servant, but it seems those that run tech companies prefer the latter.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Totally agree. I also think that there might be a fundamental divide with people in our line of work (programming), as by definition we've decided to learn how machines talk and think, to address them in their language and understand what they're telling us. Someone choosing this career path expecting to throw around vague orders and have them resolved exactly as they expected has probably already quit the first week on the job.
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    Well ostensibly the Rabbit is produced by software people. I’m generally skeptical of claims “our people think differently.” There’s loads of people in the world that understand the importance of meeting people where they’re at. An obvious example is nurses and therapists, but there must be loads of professions like that. Just not CEO, since it seems many people in that position want to give orders.
    - makeitdouble 2y ago
      I think people can see the other side (or have a foot in both) and make the life easier for other people. I mean, your point is valid for any company building tools to democratize an otherwise complex task (e.g. Squarespace like online site makers, any camera with an auto mode, automatic transmission cars etc.) I still think we're seeing different work patterns in our fields, RMS getting his mail printed is the exception more than the rule, where no one would bat an eye at HSBC's CEO never opening a computer in his daily work (I don't know him, just a random example)
  - araes 2y ago
    And I thought the conclusion was going to be nearly the exact opposite result. That our constant exposure to machines, and machine patterns has ingrained an expected compliance and obedience of order following, and not needing to argue with the computer about the "worth" of the calculations or whether they "need" to be done. You ask a machine to calculate, it calculates. Doesn't mean it calculates correctly, yet it "usually" doesn't talk balk (not until LLMs at least).

TaylorAlexander 2y ago

Yes it’s a very hierarchical way of thinking. I’d much rather imagine a world with more collaboration between peers than every person having a servant, but it seems those that run tech companies prefer the latter.

makeitdouble 2y ago
Totally agree. I also think that there might be a fundamental divide with people in our line of work (programming), as by definition we've decided to learn how machines talk and think, to address them in their language and understand what they're telling us. Someone choosing this career path expecting to throw around vague orders and have them resolved exactly as they expected has probably already quit the first week on the job.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  Well ostensibly the Rabbit is produced by software people. I’m generally skeptical of claims “our people think differently.” There’s loads of people in the world that understand the importance of meeting people where they’re at. An obvious example is nurses and therapists, but there must be loads of professions like that. Just not CEO, since it seems many people in that position want to give orders.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    I think people can see the other side (or have a foot in both) and make the life easier for other people. I mean, your point is valid for any company building tools to democratize an otherwise complex task (e.g. Squarespace like online site makers, any camera with an auto mode, automatic transmission cars etc.) I still think we're seeing different work patterns in our fields, RMS getting his mail printed is the exception more than the rule, where no one would bat an eye at HSBC's CEO never opening a computer in his daily work (I don't know him, just a random example)
- araes 2y ago
  And I thought the conclusion was going to be nearly the exact opposite result. That our constant exposure to machines, and machine patterns has ingrained an expected compliance and obedience of order following, and not needing to argue with the computer about the "worth" of the calculations or whether they "need" to be done. You ask a machine to calculate, it calculates. Doesn't mean it calculates correctly, yet it "usually" doesn't talk balk (not until LLMs at least).