5 ms·

I'm not sure I follow. The UI for ChatGPT is still on your browser, yes? So it is still HTML and CSS. The fact that it is generated content instead of static do

I'm not sure I follow. The UI for ChatGPT is still on your browser, yes? So it is still HTML and CSS. The fact that it is generated content instead of static doesn't change the front-end tech that renders it on-screen. If you are saying the UX paradigm will no longer be "pages", that I can believe. But the browser still is the most common way to access content, regardless of what generates that content.

marcuskaz 2y ago
I believe they are saying for the rest of the web, where all the information and millions of web pages. If no one goes to those web pages anymore and digests all the info via chat interfaces (ChatGPT, Google instant answers, etc...) then what's the point of having web sites. I think pointing at HTML and CSS is odd, having complete individual sites that no one visits is the impact
- codingdave 2y ago
  Ah. In that case, I reject the premise. Chat-based UX is kinda awful, and while some companies are pushing it, I don't know many people who actually thrive in such apps. I doubt such UX will result in people no longer visiting web pages.
  - canterburry 2y ago
    I absolutely agree that the chat UI is horrible, and somehow chat = AI to do many people right now. I hope it will change, but I have been observing more and more how people, out of share convenience, just go to chatgpt for anything now, they don't even bother with a Google search.
- canterburry 2y ago
  I see you point. My line of thinking was, SEO has become such an optimization game that websites have become less usable in order to rank higher in many cases. So, it would be logical to think over time, content friendly to AI bots will be favored over anything optimized for humans. Now, I don't know what incentives will be put in place for content creators by AI companies, because if no one is viewing pages, then no one is viewing ads so what pays for all this content... no idea? Maybe AI companies will need to adopt a Spotify type of payment model where authors are paid cents each time their content is referenced.

marcuskaz 2y ago

I believe they are saying for the rest of the web, where all the information and millions of web pages. If no one goes to those web pages anymore and digests all the info via chat interfaces (ChatGPT, Google instant answers, etc...) then what's the point of having web sites. I think pointing at HTML and CSS is odd, having complete individual sites that no one visits is the impact

codingdave 2y ago
Ah. In that case, I reject the premise. Chat-based UX is kinda awful, and while some companies are pushing it, I don't know many people who actually thrive in such apps. I doubt such UX will result in people no longer visiting web pages.
- canterburry 2y ago
  I absolutely agree that the chat UI is horrible, and somehow chat = AI to do many people right now. I hope it will change, but I have been observing more and more how people, out of share convenience, just go to chatgpt for anything now, they don't even bother with a Google search.
canterburry 2y ago
I see you point. My line of thinking was, SEO has become such an optimization game that websites have become less usable in order to rank higher in many cases. So, it would be logical to think over time, content friendly to AI bots will be favored over anything optimized for humans. Now, I don't know what incentives will be put in place for content creators by AI companies, because if no one is viewing pages, then no one is viewing ads so what pays for all this content... no idea? Maybe AI companies will need to adopt a Spotify type of payment model where authors are paid cents each time their content is referenced.