5 ms·

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat inte

This conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future. If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms.

nextworddev 1y ago
The apps can send any arbitrary HTML / interface back though. e.g. Coursera can send back a video player
- foobarian 1y ago
  This will be a bunch of rushed garbage. It will be like Java applets
  - nextworddev 1y ago
    Maybe, but don't forget they are godly at iteration.
asim 1y ago
It's not just as ChatGPT as the interface. It's that Chat with AI will now be the universal interface and every tech company will have their version of it. Everything you want to do will happen in one place. Cards will provide predefined and interactive experience. Over time you'll see entirely dynamic content get generated on the fly. The user experience is going to be one where we've shrunk websites to apps and apps to cards or widgets. Effectively any action you need to take can be done like this and then agents can operate more complex workflow in the background. This is probably the interface for the next 10 years and what replaces the mobile app experience and stronghold that Apple or Google have. This lasts until fully immersive AR/VR become a more mainstream thing. At that point these cards are on a heads up display but we'll be looking at something totally different. Like agents roaming the earth...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  This has been the pitched playbook for decades. (Metamates!) I'm increasingly convinced its driven by a specific generation of tech entrepreneurs who cut their teeth while reading ca. 1980s science fiction. I could see chat apps becoming dominant in Slack-oriented workplaces. But, like, chatting with an AI to play a song is objectively worse than using Spotify. Dynamically-created music sounds nice until one considers the social context in which non-filler music is heard.
  - fidotron 1y ago
    The thing it reminds me of is those old Silicon Graphics greybeards that were smug about how they were creating tools for people that created wealth when those other system providers "just" created tools for people tracking wealth. There's a whole bizarre subculture in computing that fails to recognize what it is about computers that people actually find valuable.
  - neutronicus 1y ago
    Chatting with an AI to play a song whose title you know, sure. Getting an AI to play "that song that goes hmm hmmm hmmm hmmm ... uh, it was in some commercials when I was a kid" tho
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Getting an AI to play "that song that goes hmm hmmm hmmm hmmm ... uh, it was in some commercials when I was a kid" tho Absolutely. The point is this is a specialised and occasional use case. You don't want to have to go through a chat bot every time you want to play a particular song just because sometimes you might hum at it. The closest we've come to a widely-adopted AR interface are AirPods. Critically, however, they work by mimicing how someone would speak to a real human by them.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      more abstract than that, "I'm throwing a wedding/funeral/startup IPO/Halloween/birthday party for a whatever year old and need appropriate music". Or, without knowing specific bands, "I want to hear some 80's metal music". "more cowbell!"
cube2222 1y ago
Is it? Honestly, most agents and/or ai apps I interact with that are actually useful present some form of chat-like interface. I’m not very bullish on people wanting to live in the ChatGPT UI, specifically, but the concept of dynamic apps embedded into a chat-experience I think is a reasonable direction. I’m mostly curious about if and when we get an open standard for this, similar to MCP.
- neutronicus 1y ago
  Yes, I certainly prefer "chatting with Claude Code" to "Copilot taking forever to hallucinate all over my IDE, displacing the much-more-useful previous-generation semantic autocomplete." The former is like a Waymo, the latter is like my car suddenly and autonomously deciding that now is a good time to turn into a Dollar Tree to get a COVID vaccine when I'm on my way to drop my kid off at a playdate.
- fidotron 1y ago
  The whole value of an actual executive assistant is them solving problems and you not micromanaging them. What users want, which various entities religiously avoid providing to us, is a fair price comparison and discovery mechanism for essentially everything. A huge part of the value of LLMs to date is in bypassing much of the obfuscation that exists to perpetuate this, and that's completely counteracted by much of what they're demonstrating here.
derekcheng08 1y ago
I suspect there are many, many things for which chat is a great interface. And by positioning ChatGPT as the distributor for all these things, they get to be the new Google. But you're also right that many domains for which a purpose-built interface is the right approach, and if the domain is valuable enough, it'll have someone coming after it to build that.
- munk-a 1y ago
  I have yet to see a chat agent deployed that is more popular than tailored browsing methods. The most charitable way to explain this is that the tailored browsing methods already in place are the results of years of careful design and battle testing and that the chat agent is providing most of the value that a tailored browsing method would but without any of the investment required to bring a traditional UX to fruition - that may be the case and if it is then allowing them the same time to be refined and improved would be fair. I am skeptical of that being the only difference though, I think that chatbots are a way to, essentially, outsource the difficult work of locating data within a corpus onto the user and that users will always have a disadvantage compared to the (hopefully) subject matter experts building the system. So perhaps chatbots are an excellent method for building out a prototype in a new field while you collect usage statistics to build a more refined UX - but it is bizarre that so many businesses seem to be discarding battle tested UXes for chatbots.
  - peab 1y ago
    agree. Thing is, for those who paid attention to the last chatBot hype cycle, we already knew this. Look at how Google Assistant was portrayed back in 2016. People thought you'd be buying starbucks via the chat. Turns out the starbucks app has a better UX
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      Yea, I don't want to sit there at my computer, which can handle lots of different input methods, like keyboard, mouse, clicking, dragging, or my phone which can handle gestures, pinching, swiping... and try to articulate what I need it to do in English language conversation. This is actually a step backwards in human-computer interaction. To use an extreme example: imagine instead of a knob on my stereo for volume, I had a chat box where I had to type in "Volume up to 35". Most other "chatbot solved" HCI problems are just like this volume control example, but less extreme.
glenstein 1y ago
There's a lot of appropriate blowback against stupid AI hype and I'm all for it. But I do think in many respects it's a better interface than (1) bad search results, (2) cluttered websites, (3) freemium apps with upgrade nags, as well as the collective search cost of sorting through all those things. I remember reading some not-Neuromancer book by William Gibson where one of his near-future predictions was print magazines but with custom printed articles curated to fit your interests. Which is cool! In a world where print magazines were still dominant, you could see it as a forward iteration from the magazine status quo, potentially predictive of a future to come. But what happened in reality was a wholesale leapfrogging of magazines. So I think you sometimes get leapfrogging rather than iteration, which I suspect is in play as a possibility with AI driven apps. I don't think apps will ever literally be replaced but I think there's a real chance they get displaced by AI everything-interfaces. I think the mitigating factor is not some foundational limit to AI's usefulness but enshittification, which I don't think used to consume good services so voraciously in the 00s or 2010s as it does today. Something tells me we might look back at the current chat based interfaces as the good old days.
- dylan604 1y ago
  at least with bad search results, you had to look at them to know they were bad or become used to certain domains that you could prejudge the result and move to the next one. LLMs confidently tell you false/made up information as fact. If you fail to follow up with any references and just accept result, you are very susceptible to getting fooled by the machine. Getting outside of the tech bubble echo chamber that is HN, a large number of GPT app users have never heard of hallucinations or any of the issues inherit with LLMs.
- jerojero 1y ago
  I think you need to be careful here because you shouldn't be comparing chat apps to the current state of search results. Instead you compare it to the ideal or to the state of them before companies decided that instead of providing what people are looking for it was more profitable to provide them with related content that they're paid to show. We are at a moment where we're trying to figure out how to design good interfaces, but very soon after that the moment of "okay, now let's start selling with them" will come and that's really what we're going to be left with. In that regard, things like adblockers which now a days can be used to mitigate some of these defects you talk about are probably going to be much more difficult to implement in a chat-app interface. What are we going to do when we ask an agent for something and it responds with an ad rather than the relevant information we're seeking? It seems to me like it's going to be even more difficult to be in control for the user.
artursapek 1y ago
Once it's efficient enough, you will be able to just vocally talk to your computer to do all of this. Text chat is just the simplest form of a natural language interface, which is obviously the future of computing.
- fragmede 1y ago
  The ChatGPT phone app has had voice conversation mode for a while now. it's more interactive than a podcast while driving. There are apps (Wispr, non-affiliated) to make talking to your computer easier. The future is definitely a hybrid of them. sometimes I want to talk, other times I want to type.
- s__s 1y ago
  I don’t think natural language is efficient enough. Whether that be text or voice. I imagine the Star Trek vision is pretty accurate. You occasionally talk to the computer when it makes sense, but more often than not you’re still interacting with a GUI of some kind.
AlphaAndOmega0 1y ago
>If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms. I'm not sure that claim is justified. The primary agentic use case today is code generation, and the target demographic is used to IDEs/code editors. While that's probably a good chunk of total token usage, it's not representative of the average user's needs or desires. I strongly doubt that the chat interface would have become so ubiquitous if it didn't have merit. Even for more general agentic use, a chat interface allows the user the convenience of typing or dictating messages. And it's trivially bundled with audio-to-audio or video-to-video, the former already being common. I expect that even in the future, if/when richer modalities become standard (and the models can produce video in real-time), most people will be consuming their outputs as text. It's simply more convenient for most use-cases.
- GoatInGrey 1y ago
  Having already seen this explored late '24, what ends up happening is that the end user generates apps that have lots of jank, quirks, and logical errors that they lack the ability to troubleshoot or resolve. Like the fast forward button corrupting their settings config, the cloud sync feature causing 100% CPU load, icons gradually drifting away from their original positions on each window resize event, or the GUI tutorial activating every time they switch views in the app. Even worse, because their app is the only one of its kind, there is no other human to turn to for advice.
  - handfuloflight 1y ago
    Hopefully, people, and technology aren't stuck in late '24.
notatoad 1y ago
i can't imagine that users will be interested in asking chatGPT to ask zillow things, or ask chatGPT to ask canva to do things. that's a clunky interface. i can see users asking chatGPT to look up house prices, or to generate graphics, but they're not going to ask for zillow or canva specifically. and if the apps are trusting ChatGPT to send them users based on those sort of queries, it's only a matter of time before ChatGPT brings the functionality first-party and cuts out the apps - any app who believes chat is the universal interface of the future and exposes their functionality as a ChatGPT app is signing their own death warrant.
- echelon 1y ago
  Every company should see OpenAi as a threat. They absolutely will come for you when the time comes. It's just like Google and websites, but much more insidious. If they can get your data, they'll subsume your function (and revenue stream).
  - grugagag 1y ago
    That and the erosion in privacy make OpenAI somehthing to be very vigilant about.
- throwacct 1y ago
  This x1000. Are businesses short sided enough to help create and develop another wallet garden just like "Google" and "Amazon" are right now? Time will tell but I think businesses want to own their sales funnel, not just give the user a way to avoid interacting with them.
- freakynit 1y ago
  Exactly. This is exactly the same playbook as has already been played multiple times in the past(and currently playing) by existing companies. These companies initially laid out red carpets for such builders, but once they themselves had enough apps, they started to tighten the rope, and then gradually shifted to complete 100% control and extortion in the name of "security" or other made-up-excuse. No-more walled garden. If something like this has to come (which I truly believe is helpful), it should be buiild on open-web and open protocols, not controlled by single for-profit company (ironical since OpenAI is technically non-profit).
gapeslape 1y ago
I agree with what you are saying. I’m building a tool that helps you solve any type of questionnaire (https://requestf.com https://requestf.com) and I just can’t imagine how I could leverage Apps. It would be awesome to get the distribution, but it has to also make sense from the UX perspective.
- ecosystem 1y ago
  Your link is broken?
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future Out of curiosity, why iff?
- ViscountPenguin 1y ago
  "iff" means "if and only if". It's common in mathematics.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    Correct. I’m asking why this SDK makes sense <—> ChatGPT becomes a universal interface. Why isn’t it useful for intermediate applications?
mark_l_watson 1y ago
I agree with you. I think chat interfaces are really good with voice interfaces while walking, asking for a foreign language lesson, effectively doing a web search while walking by speaking and listening to the answer. Other app-like interfaces like NotebookLM can be useful, for me one or two real uses a week. Then there is engineering small open models into larger systems to do structured data extraction, etc. I am skeptical about the current utility of agentic systems, MCP, etc. - even though I like to experiment. Someone else said that at least the didn’t go on and on about AGI today - a nice thing. FOMO chasing ASI and AGI will drive us bankrupt, and produce some useful results.
yuriNator 1y ago
The interface of the future is local "AI" in the form of functions embedded in hardware inferred from data sets One way to consider it that I like as an EE working in the energy model realm; consider the geometry of an oscilloscope. Electromagnetism to be carved up into equations that recreate it. Geometric generators that create bulk structure and allow for changing min/max parameters to achieve desired result. Consider a hardware system that boots and offers little more than blender and photoshop like parameter UI widgets to manipulate whatever segment of the geometry that isn't quite right. Currently we rely on an OS paradigm that is basically a virtual machine to noodle strings. The future will be a vector virtual machine that lets users noodle coordinates. Way less resource intensive to think of it all as sync of memory matrix to display matrix and jettison all the syntax sugar developers stuck with string munging OS of history.
wslh 1y ago
WeChat is the counterexample of your affirmation.
- esafak 1y ago
  Is wechat purely conservational, without visuals? I think not.

nextworddev 1y ago

The apps can send any arbitrary HTML / interface back though. e.g. Coursera can send back a video player

foobarian 1y ago
This will be a bunch of rushed garbage. It will be like Java applets
- nextworddev 1y ago
  Maybe, but don't forget they are godly at iteration.

asim 1y ago

It's not just as ChatGPT as the interface. It's that Chat with AI will now be the universal interface and every tech company will have their version of it. Everything you want to do will happen in one place. Cards will provide predefined and interactive experience. Over time you'll see entirely dynamic content get generated on the fly. The user experience is going to be one where we've shrunk websites to apps and apps to cards or widgets. Effectively any action you need to take can be done like this and then agents can operate more complex workflow in the background. This is probably the interface for the next 10 years and what replaces the mobile app experience and stronghold that Apple or Google have. This lasts until fully immersive AR/VR become a more mainstream thing. At that point these cards are on a heads up display but we'll be looking at something totally different. Like agents roaming the earth...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
This has been the pitched playbook for decades. (Metamates!) I'm increasingly convinced its driven by a specific generation of tech entrepreneurs who cut their teeth while reading ca. 1980s science fiction. I could see chat apps becoming dominant in Slack-oriented workplaces. But, like, chatting with an AI to play a song is objectively worse than using Spotify. Dynamically-created music sounds nice until one considers the social context in which non-filler music is heard.
- fidotron 1y ago
  The thing it reminds me of is those old Silicon Graphics greybeards that were smug about how they were creating tools for people that created wealth when those other system providers "just" created tools for people tracking wealth. There's a whole bizarre subculture in computing that fails to recognize what it is about computers that people actually find valuable.
- neutronicus 1y ago
  Chatting with an AI to play a song whose title you know, sure. Getting an AI to play "that song that goes hmm hmmm hmmm hmmm ... uh, it was in some commercials when I was a kid" tho
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Getting an AI to play "that song that goes hmm hmmm hmmm hmmm ... uh, it was in some commercials when I was a kid" tho Absolutely. The point is this is a specialised and occasional use case. You don't want to have to go through a chat bot every time you want to play a particular song just because sometimes you might hum at it. The closest we've come to a widely-adopted AR interface are AirPods. Critically, however, they work by mimicing how someone would speak to a real human by them.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    more abstract than that, "I'm throwing a wedding/funeral/startup IPO/Halloween/birthday party for a whatever year old and need appropriate music". Or, without knowing specific bands, "I want to hear some 80's metal music". "more cowbell!"

cube2222 1y ago

Is it? Honestly, most agents and/or ai apps I interact with that are actually useful present some form of chat-like interface. I’m not very bullish on people wanting to live in the ChatGPT UI, specifically, but the concept of dynamic apps embedded into a chat-experience I think is a reasonable direction. I’m mostly curious about if and when we get an open standard for this, similar to MCP.

neutronicus 1y ago
Yes, I certainly prefer "chatting with Claude Code" to "Copilot taking forever to hallucinate all over my IDE, displacing the much-more-useful previous-generation semantic autocomplete." The former is like a Waymo, the latter is like my car suddenly and autonomously deciding that now is a good time to turn into a Dollar Tree to get a COVID vaccine when I'm on my way to drop my kid off at a playdate.
fidotron 1y ago
The whole value of an actual executive assistant is them solving problems and you not micromanaging them. What users want, which various entities religiously avoid providing to us, is a fair price comparison and discovery mechanism for essentially everything. A huge part of the value of LLMs to date is in bypassing much of the obfuscation that exists to perpetuate this, and that's completely counteracted by much of what they're demonstrating here.

derekcheng08 1y ago

I suspect there are many, many things for which chat is a great interface. And by positioning ChatGPT as the distributor for all these things, they get to be the new Google. But you're also right that many domains for which a purpose-built interface is the right approach, and if the domain is valuable enough, it'll have someone coming after it to build that.

munk-a 1y ago
I have yet to see a chat agent deployed that is more popular than tailored browsing methods. The most charitable way to explain this is that the tailored browsing methods already in place are the results of years of careful design and battle testing and that the chat agent is providing most of the value that a tailored browsing method would but without any of the investment required to bring a traditional UX to fruition - that may be the case and if it is then allowing them the same time to be refined and improved would be fair. I am skeptical of that being the only difference though, I think that chatbots are a way to, essentially, outsource the difficult work of locating data within a corpus onto the user and that users will always have a disadvantage compared to the (hopefully) subject matter experts building the system. So perhaps chatbots are an excellent method for building out a prototype in a new field while you collect usage statistics to build a more refined UX - but it is bizarre that so many businesses seem to be discarding battle tested UXes for chatbots.
- peab 1y ago
  agree. Thing is, for those who paid attention to the last chatBot hype cycle, we already knew this. Look at how Google Assistant was portrayed back in 2016. People thought you'd be buying starbucks via the chat. Turns out the starbucks app has a better UX
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    Yea, I don't want to sit there at my computer, which can handle lots of different input methods, like keyboard, mouse, clicking, dragging, or my phone which can handle gestures, pinching, swiping... and try to articulate what I need it to do in English language conversation. This is actually a step backwards in human-computer interaction. To use an extreme example: imagine instead of a knob on my stereo for volume, I had a chat box where I had to type in "Volume up to 35". Most other "chatbot solved" HCI problems are just like this volume control example, but less extreme.

glenstein 1y ago

There's a lot of appropriate blowback against stupid AI hype and I'm all for it. But I do think in many respects it's a better interface than (1) bad search results, (2) cluttered websites, (3) freemium apps with upgrade nags, as well as the collective search cost of sorting through all those things. I remember reading some not-Neuromancer book by William Gibson where one of his near-future predictions was print magazines but with custom printed articles curated to fit your interests. Which is cool! In a world where print magazines were still dominant, you could see it as a forward iteration from the magazine status quo, potentially predictive of a future to come. But what happened in reality was a wholesale leapfrogging of magazines. So I think you sometimes get leapfrogging rather than iteration, which I suspect is in play as a possibility with AI driven apps. I don't think apps will ever literally be replaced but I think there's a real chance they get displaced by AI everything-interfaces. I think the mitigating factor is not some foundational limit to AI's usefulness but enshittification, which I don't think used to consume good services so voraciously in the 00s or 2010s as it does today. Something tells me we might look back at the current chat based interfaces as the good old days.

dylan604 1y ago
at least with bad search results, you had to look at them to know they were bad or become used to certain domains that you could prejudge the result and move to the next one. LLMs confidently tell you false/made up information as fact. If you fail to follow up with any references and just accept result, you are very susceptible to getting fooled by the machine. Getting outside of the tech bubble echo chamber that is HN, a large number of GPT app users have never heard of hallucinations or any of the issues inherit with LLMs.
jerojero 1y ago
I think you need to be careful here because you shouldn't be comparing chat apps to the current state of search results. Instead you compare it to the ideal or to the state of them before companies decided that instead of providing what people are looking for it was more profitable to provide them with related content that they're paid to show. We are at a moment where we're trying to figure out how to design good interfaces, but very soon after that the moment of "okay, now let's start selling with them" will come and that's really what we're going to be left with. In that regard, things like adblockers which now a days can be used to mitigate some of these defects you talk about are probably going to be much more difficult to implement in a chat-app interface. What are we going to do when we ask an agent for something and it responds with an ad rather than the relevant information we're seeking? It seems to me like it's going to be even more difficult to be in control for the user.

artursapek 1y ago

Once it's efficient enough, you will be able to just vocally talk to your computer to do all of this. Text chat is just the simplest form of a natural language interface, which is obviously the future of computing.

fragmede 1y ago
The ChatGPT phone app has had voice conversation mode for a while now. it's more interactive than a podcast while driving. There are apps (Wispr, non-affiliated) to make talking to your computer easier. The future is definitely a hybrid of them. sometimes I want to talk, other times I want to type.
s__s 1y ago
I don’t think natural language is efficient enough. Whether that be text or voice. I imagine the Star Trek vision is pretty accurate. You occasionally talk to the computer when it makes sense, but more often than not you’re still interacting with a GUI of some kind.

AlphaAndOmega0 1y ago

>If anything the agentic wave is showing that the chat interfaces are better off hidden behind stricter user interface paradigms. I'm not sure that claim is justified. The primary agentic use case today is code generation, and the target demographic is used to IDEs/code editors. While that's probably a good chunk of total token usage, it's not representative of the average user's needs or desires. I strongly doubt that the chat interface would have become so ubiquitous if it didn't have merit. Even for more general agentic use, a chat interface allows the user the convenience of typing or dictating messages. And it's trivially bundled with audio-to-audio or video-to-video, the former already being common. I expect that even in the future, if/when richer modalities become standard (and the models can produce video in real-time), most people will be consuming their outputs as text. It's simply more convenient for most use-cases.

GoatInGrey 1y ago
Having already seen this explored late '24, what ends up happening is that the end user generates apps that have lots of jank, quirks, and logical errors that they lack the ability to troubleshoot or resolve. Like the fast forward button corrupting their settings config, the cloud sync feature causing 100% CPU load, icons gradually drifting away from their original positions on each window resize event, or the GUI tutorial activating every time they switch views in the app. Even worse, because their app is the only one of its kind, there is no other human to turn to for advice.
- handfuloflight 1y ago
  Hopefully, people, and technology aren't stuck in late '24.

notatoad 1y ago

i can't imagine that users will be interested in asking chatGPT to ask zillow things, or ask chatGPT to ask canva to do things. that's a clunky interface. i can see users asking chatGPT to look up house prices, or to generate graphics, but they're not going to ask for zillow or canva specifically. and if the apps are trusting ChatGPT to send them users based on those sort of queries, it's only a matter of time before ChatGPT brings the functionality first-party and cuts out the apps - any app who believes chat is the universal interface of the future and exposes their functionality as a ChatGPT app is signing their own death warrant.

echelon 1y ago
Every company should see OpenAi as a threat. They absolutely will come for you when the time comes. It's just like Google and websites, but much more insidious. If they can get your data, they'll subsume your function (and revenue stream).
- grugagag 1y ago
  That and the erosion in privacy make OpenAI somehthing to be very vigilant about.
throwacct 1y ago
This x1000. Are businesses short sided enough to help create and develop another wallet garden just like "Google" and "Amazon" are right now? Time will tell but I think businesses want to own their sales funnel, not just give the user a way to avoid interacting with them.
freakynit 1y ago
Exactly. This is exactly the same playbook as has already been played multiple times in the past(and currently playing) by existing companies. These companies initially laid out red carpets for such builders, but once they themselves had enough apps, they started to tighten the rope, and then gradually shifted to complete 100% control and extortion in the name of "security" or other made-up-excuse. No-more walled garden. If something like this has to come (which I truly believe is helpful), it should be buiild on open-web and open protocols, not controlled by single for-profit company (ironical since OpenAI is technically non-profit).

gapeslape 1y ago

I agree with what you are saying. I’m building a tool that helps you solve any type of questionnaire (https://requestf.com https://requestf.com) and I just can’t imagine how I could leverage Apps. It would be awesome to get the distribution, but it has to also make sense from the UX perspective.

ecosystem 1y ago
Your link is broken?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> conception makes sense iff you believe in ChatGPT as the universal user interface of the future Out of curiosity, why iff?

ViscountPenguin 1y ago
"iff" means "if and only if". It's common in mathematics.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Correct. I’m asking why this SDK makes sense <—> ChatGPT becomes a universal interface. Why isn’t it useful for intermediate applications?

mark_l_watson 1y ago

I agree with you. I think chat interfaces are really good with voice interfaces while walking, asking for a foreign language lesson, effectively doing a web search while walking by speaking and listening to the answer. Other app-like interfaces like NotebookLM can be useful, for me one or two real uses a week. Then there is engineering small open models into larger systems to do structured data extraction, etc. I am skeptical about the current utility of agentic systems, MCP, etc. - even though I like to experiment. Someone else said that at least the didn’t go on and on about AGI today - a nice thing. FOMO chasing ASI and AGI will drive us bankrupt, and produce some useful results.

yuriNator 1y ago

The interface of the future is local "AI" in the form of functions embedded in hardware inferred from data sets One way to consider it that I like as an EE working in the energy model realm; consider the geometry of an oscilloscope. Electromagnetism to be carved up into equations that recreate it. Geometric generators that create bulk structure and allow for changing min/max parameters to achieve desired result. Consider a hardware system that boots and offers little more than blender and photoshop like parameter UI widgets to manipulate whatever segment of the geometry that isn't quite right. Currently we rely on an OS paradigm that is basically a virtual machine to noodle strings. The future will be a vector virtual machine that lets users noodle coordinates. Way less resource intensive to think of it all as sync of memory matrix to display matrix and jettison all the syntax sugar developers stuck with string munging OS of history.

wslh 1y ago

WeChat is the counterexample of your affirmation.

esafak 1y ago
Is wechat purely conservational, without visuals? I think not.