3 ms·

> We need an interface to operate a tool, not an interface to an agent that operates a tool for us. Excellent comment and it gets to the heart of something I'v

> We need an interface to operate a tool, not an interface to an agent that operates a tool for us. Excellent comment and it gets to the heart of something I've had trouble clearly articulating: We've slowly lost the concept that a computer is a tool that the user wields and commands to do things. Now, a computer has its own mind and agency, and we "request" it to do things and "communicate" with it, and ask it to run this and don't run that. Now, we're negotiating and pleading with the man inside of the computer, Mr. Computer, who has its own goals and ambitions that don't necessarily align with your own as a user. It runs what it wants to run, and if that upsets you, user, well tough shit! Instead of waiting for a command and then faithfully executing it, Mr. Computer is off doing whatever the hell he wants, running system applications in the background, updating this and that, sending you notifications, and occasionally asking you for permission to do even more. And here you are as the user, hobbled and increasingly forced to "chat" with it to get it to do what you want. Even turning your computer off! You used to throw a hardware switch that interrupts the power to the main board, and _sayonara_ Mr. Computer! Now, the switch does nothing but send an impassioned plea to the operating system to pretty please, with sugar on top, when you're not busy could you possibly power off the computer (or mostly power it off, because off doesn't even mean off anymore).

xp84 2y ago
This is a great observation. I've mostly thought of it, not in relation to AI, but in relation to the way Apple and to a lesser extent, Microsoft, act like they are the owners of the computers we "buy." An update will be installed now. Your silly user applications will be closed by force if necessary. System stability depends on it! The modern OS values the system's theoretical 'system health' metrics far above things like "whether the user can use it to do some user task." Another great example is how you can't boot a modern Mac laptop, on AC power, until it has decided its battery is sufficiently charged. Why? None of your business. Anyway to get back on topic, this is an interesting connection you've made, the software vendor will perhaps delegate decisions like "is the user allowed to log into the computer at this time" or "is a reboot mandatory" to an "agent" running on the computer. If we're lucky we'll get to talk to that agent to plead our case, but my guess is Apple and Microsoft will decide we aren't qualified to have input to the decisions.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  An example of where this is going is Apple's so-called "System Integrity Protection"[1] which is essentially an access level to system files that's even higher than root. It's Apple arrogantly protecting "their" system from the user, even from the root user: System Integrity Protection is designed to allow modification of these protected parts only by processes that are signed by Apple and have special entitlements to write to system files, such as Apple software updates and Apple installers. Only Apple can be trusted to operate what is supposed to be your computer. 1: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102149 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102149
  - skydhash 2y ago
    Which is why I love my freebsd installation (and before that Alpine Linux) and why I develop on a VM on macOS. I can trivially modify the system components to get the behavior that I need. I consider macOS as a step up from ChromeOS, but not a general purpose computer OS. Latest annoyance was the fact that signing out of Books.app signs you out of the App Store (I didn’t want epubs to be synced).
Karrot_Kream 2y ago
> Now, a computer has its own mind and agency, and we "request" it to do things and "communicate" with it, and ask it to run this and don't run that. FWIW this happens what happens with modern steering wheels as well. Power steering is its own complicated subsystem that isn't just about user input. It has many more failure modes than an old-fashioned, analog steering wheel. The reason folks feel like "Mr. Computer" has a mind of its own is because of the mismatch between user desire and effect. This is a UX problem. I also think chat and RAG are the biggest two UX paradigms we've spent exploring when it comes to LLMs. It's probably worth folks exploring other UX for LLMs that are enabling for the user. Suggestions in documents and code seem to be a UX that more people enjoy using but even then there's a mismatch.

xp84 2y ago

This is a great observation. I've mostly thought of it, not in relation to AI, but in relation to the way Apple and to a lesser extent, Microsoft, act like they are the owners of the computers we "buy." An update will be installed now. Your silly user applications will be closed by force if necessary. System stability depends on it! The modern OS values the system's theoretical 'system health' metrics far above things like "whether the user can use it to do some user task." Another great example is how you can't boot a modern Mac laptop, on AC power, until it has decided its battery is sufficiently charged. Why? None of your business. Anyway to get back on topic, this is an interesting connection you've made, the software vendor will perhaps delegate decisions like "is the user allowed to log into the computer at this time" or "is a reboot mandatory" to an "agent" running on the computer. If we're lucky we'll get to talk to that agent to plead our case, but my guess is Apple and Microsoft will decide we aren't qualified to have input to the decisions.

ryandrake 2y ago
An example of where this is going is Apple's so-called "System Integrity Protection"[1] which is essentially an access level to system files that's even higher than root. It's Apple arrogantly protecting "their" system from the user, even from the root user: System Integrity Protection is designed to allow modification of these protected parts only by processes that are signed by Apple and have special entitlements to write to system files, such as Apple software updates and Apple installers. Only Apple can be trusted to operate what is supposed to be your computer. 1: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102149 https://support.apple.com/en-us/102149
- skydhash 2y ago
  Which is why I love my freebsd installation (and before that Alpine Linux) and why I develop on a VM on macOS. I can trivially modify the system components to get the behavior that I need. I consider macOS as a step up from ChromeOS, but not a general purpose computer OS. Latest annoyance was the fact that signing out of Books.app signs you out of the App Store (I didn’t want epubs to be synced).

Karrot_Kream 2y ago

> Now, a computer has its own mind and agency, and we "request" it to do things and "communicate" with it, and ask it to run this and don't run that. FWIW this happens what happens with modern steering wheels as well. Power steering is its own complicated subsystem that isn't just about user input. It has many more failure modes than an old-fashioned, analog steering wheel. The reason folks feel like "Mr. Computer" has a mind of its own is because of the mismatch between user desire and effect. This is a UX problem. I also think chat and RAG are the biggest two UX paradigms we've spent exploring when it comes to LLMs. It's probably worth folks exploring other UX for LLMs that are enabling for the user. Suggestions in documents and code seem to be a UX that more people enjoy using but even then there's a mismatch.