4 ms·
A friend of mine already does something much like this: she communicates by talking to her phone, which transcribes her messages and sends them as text. She pra
by marssaxman 1y ago
A friend of mine already does something much like this: she communicates by talking to her phone, which transcribes her messages and sends them as text. She practically never has a live phone conversation, nor writes any messages herself. I'm sure she would take to a system like you describe quite naturally, describing what she wants to say instead of strictly dictating it.
For me, I so rarely make or receive voice phone calls that I would likely not bother setting up such a service even if it were given to me for free; nor do I ever use voice interfaces, if I can help it. I much prefer to write.
- JohnFen 1y agoBut that's still direct communication. It's not involving an intermediary. Perhaps I misunderstood the question. I took it as meaning the elimination of all direct communication, not just voice.
- marssaxman 1y agoEither I don't understand what you mean by direct communication, or we have different impressions of what the "indirect phone" proposal meant. What I heard didn't sound so different from the way I already use my phone - I almost exclusively send and receive messages, asynchronously, rather than having synchronous voice conversations. I thus took the proposal to be about automated ways of generating and digesting these messages. What were you envisioning?
- JohnFen 1y agoWhat I mean by "direct communication" is that my words go directly to who I'm talking with and their words go directly to me. I'm interpreting "indirect communication" as used in the OP to mean that I tell an intermediary (an LLM in this case) what I want to say, and the intermediary says it for me (and vice versa). I wasn't thinking that the medium used (voice, text, whatever) was an important part of the direct/indirect distinction.