3 ms·

A chat interface is great in the sense that it's open, flexible and intuitive. The downside is there's a tendency to anthropomorphise AI, and you might not wan

A chat interface is great in the sense that it's open, flexible and intuitive. The downside is there's a tendency to anthropomorphise AI, and you might not want to talk to your computer: it takes too long to explain all the details, can be clunky for certain tasks and as the author argues actually limiting if you don't already know what it can do. There's a need to get past the "Turing test" phase and integrate AI into more workflows so that chat is one interface among many options depending on the job to be done.

BoredPositron 2y ago
You know I kinda want to but more like in Star Trek. Interconnected between voice commands, terminals and screens. The problem is the fact that we won’t get a well integrated AI. The best possibility has probably apple because they usually get the interconnections between their products right… but they have other problems in regards to AI.
rafaelmn 2y ago
Chat works because humans are really impressed by natural language responses, irregardless of the actual correctness/quality. Once you build it into a product the failure modes become obvious.
- kazinator 2y ago
  'irregardless' of correctness, LOL. Best thing I read all day.
  - rafaelmn 2y ago
    Is it double negative ? English not a first language so maybe doesn't translate exactly. But kind of proves my point - if that was grammatically correct bullshit you're way more impressed than getting an awkwardly structured reply. When you actually build stuff with AI into products (I've been a part of several integrations), failure modes and reliability become obviously lacking. Models failing to respond to a simple RAG question with relevant context a significant percentage of time, meanwhile they are solving PHD problems on some benchmark's. Then you find out they have to sample 10s of times to get the right answer in scenarios where evaluation is simple, or include tests in training data and then suddenly the lack of product integration makes sense.

BoredPositron 2y ago

You know I kinda want to but more like in Star Trek. Interconnected between voice commands, terminals and screens. The problem is the fact that we won’t get a well integrated AI. The best possibility has probably apple because they usually get the interconnections between their products right… but they have other problems in regards to AI.

rafaelmn 2y ago

Chat works because humans are really impressed by natural language responses, irregardless of the actual correctness/quality. Once you build it into a product the failure modes become obvious.

kazinator 2y ago
'irregardless' of correctness, LOL. Best thing I read all day.
- rafaelmn 2y ago
  Is it double negative ? English not a first language so maybe doesn't translate exactly. But kind of proves my point - if that was grammatically correct bullshit you're way more impressed than getting an awkwardly structured reply. When you actually build stuff with AI into products (I've been a part of several integrations), failure modes and reliability become obviously lacking. Models failing to respond to a simple RAG question with relevant context a significant percentage of time, meanwhile they are solving PHD problems on some benchmark's. Then you find out they have to sample 10s of times to get the right answer in scenarios where evaluation is simple, or include tests in training data and then suddenly the lack of product integration makes sense.