5 ms·

I am more than ok with the self-driving car. This will really relieve us from a heavy and unsafe burden. Our grand kids in 50 years will wonder how we did fooli

by gbog 14y ago

I am more than ok with the self-driving car. This will really relieve us from a heavy and unsafe burden. Our grand kids in 50 years will wonder how we did foolishly let (almost) everyone drive so dangerous a killing machine. But I am not ok with most other directions Google seem to be looking at: - Voice control: Voice control maybe useful to do some hand-less complex configuration but it will always be awkward for normal operations of electronic tools. To push the comparison to its limits: one would not talk to one's screwdriver ("on the left, on the left, stop! on the right! get inside, turn right, euh no! I mean LEFT, counterclockwise..."), one will always prefer tools with direct interaction and feedback. Moreover, in most situations, using voice or sound to communicate is just adding noise to already noisy envs (eg on a plane, train, during meetings. etc). A factory robot or a plane cockpit have full-fledged interfaces, with knobs and screens and all, but none will use voice control or even sound feedback except for the most urgent and intrusive warning notifications. Even the navigation voice telling me to "turn left in 100 meters" is too intrusive, because maybe at the same time I am talking with someone in the car. A soft "bzzz" on the wheel to remind me to check the navigation screen should be enough. As anyone has experienced, the voice robot "press one for x, press two for y" is a very good subject for jokes, because it is borderline unbearable: both too slow and too fast, both too rigid and not solid enough. With touchscreens in everyone pocket, I bet these usability nightmares will be replaced with apps or websites. So, in all, voice control, Siri and Google Now seem to be technological dead-ends. It will probably be similar to alchemy however: it is wrong to try to make gold out of mud, but it was the seed of Chemistry. - Guess my wishes: I think the "Fairy Godmother" better stay fairy tale. Human beings have shown enough they do not like to be catered like a crowd of sheep. History books are full of revolutions against entities willing to "guess the wishes", from the Catholic Church, to communism, to feudalism. Always in the name of Freedom, and freedom is best felt when you have "unguessable wishes". If Google buys me plane tickets to Sri Lanka because it has detected it was the most suitable destination for my tastes, I probably will cancel the tickets and turn off Google Travel Prescience, because I want this choice to be mine. I know I am getting a bit too far, but I don't think most people really want their wishes to be guessed. Everyone hopes to be unique, and choose one's life, and decide one's fate. This is the feeling of one's freedom and guessing wishes would just kill it. Or, the "suggestions" must be very careful in suggesting things and must be psychological enough to let you think that you did find the idea yourself. Just like a careful mother will transparently suggest to a kid something to do or not to do and at the same time will not hinder the kids' feeling of "free-will".

holri 14y ago
Immanuel Kant: """ Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. """
corporalagumbo 14y ago
1) History contains precisely zero precedents for the transformations in ease and quality of life about to be unleashed by smart learning algorithm-sensor systems. 2) Your historical references are cartoonish. 3) Feudalism in the name of freedom? Seriously?
LockeWatts 14y ago
"Even the navigation voice telling me to "turn left in 100 meters" is too intrusive, because maybe at the same time I am talking with someone in the car. A soft "bzzz" on the wheel to remind me to check the navigation screen should be enough." This is entirely your preference. It in no way mirrors the entire population. For example, I love the fact that when my phone is plugged into my car's stereo system, it will not only turn down my music in order to talk to me, but it will do so loud enough to override the other ambient noise in the car. I don't want to have to look at my phone for directions. I actually want my eyes on the road. It telling me, "turn left in 100 meters" means I can do that without taking my hands and eyes off of the controls of the car.
brian_cloutier 14y ago
I don't think you're giving the future enough credit. You discredit voice control, but base your opinion solely on their present capabilities. > the voice robot "press one for x, press two for y" is a very good subject for jokes Interactive voice systems are among the most primitive voice control system possible. The simplest require you "talk" using generated tones. The more complicated accept a real voice but are hardly conversational; they present a rigid and invisible menu of options. At least they present options, some text-based games of lore required you to read the minds of their game designers. But they won't always be this way. There's no reason to believe computers won't someday become as good at conversing as humans are. Surely you've noticed talking with a human over the phone is much faster than talking over IM, and eventually computers will also hit that point. Imagine it: you pick up your phone and call AT&T, the system immediately picks up and asks "Thanks for calling customer support, may I have your PIN please?", followed by "Hello gbog, and why are you calling today?". You respond with a simple "I'd like to pay my phone bill" and the conversation continues. > With touchscreens in everyone pocket, I bet these usability nightmares will be replaced with apps or websites. What happens when you don't have a touchscreen in your pocket? Touchscreens are magical and the current rage, but there's no reason to believe they are the last word in HCI. What about Google glass? Implants? Some other form-factor we haven't yet imagined? Voice recognition will become faster than using apps, it's already happening! Telling Siri to "set an alarm for 9:30 tomorrow" is much faster than unlocking your phone, finding the right app, waiting for it to open, then messing with those damned spinners. > So, in all, voice control, Siri and Google Now seem to be technological dead-ends Siri is a vision of the future. For the first time (if you'll allow some narrative license) you can have something resembling a conversation with your computer. You talk to it like you would anybody else, and it tells you what you'd like to know. Speech is the fastest method we have of dumping information from our brains, it's incredibly natural, and it's nearly universal; I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually became our primary method of controlling computers. I don't want to make this comment too long, but a similar argument applies to Page's vision of predicting your needs. You are focusing too much on the present and not enough on the futures potential.

by gbog 14y ago

holri 14y ago

Immanuel Kant: """ Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. """

corporalagumbo 14y ago

1) History contains precisely zero precedents for the transformations in ease and quality of life about to be unleashed by smart learning algorithm-sensor systems. 2) Your historical references are cartoonish. 3) Feudalism in the name of freedom? Seriously?

LockeWatts 14y ago

"Even the navigation voice telling me to "turn left in 100 meters" is too intrusive, because maybe at the same time I am talking with someone in the car. A soft "bzzz" on the wheel to remind me to check the navigation screen should be enough." This is entirely your preference. It in no way mirrors the entire population. For example, I love the fact that when my phone is plugged into my car's stereo system, it will not only turn down my music in order to talk to me, but it will do so loud enough to override the other ambient noise in the car. I don't want to have to look at my phone for directions. I actually want my eyes on the road. It telling me, "turn left in 100 meters" means I can do that without taking my hands and eyes off of the controls of the car.

brian_cloutier 14y ago

I don't think you're giving the future enough credit. You discredit voice control, but base your opinion solely on their present capabilities. > the voice robot "press one for x, press two for y" is a very good subject for jokes Interactive voice systems are among the most primitive voice control system possible. The simplest require you "talk" using generated tones. The more complicated accept a real voice but are hardly conversational; they present a rigid and invisible menu of options. At least they present options, some text-based games of lore required you to read the minds of their game designers. But they won't always be this way. There's no reason to believe computers won't someday become as good at conversing as humans are. Surely you've noticed talking with a human over the phone is much faster than talking over IM, and eventually computers will also hit that point. Imagine it: you pick up your phone and call AT&T, the system immediately picks up and asks "Thanks for calling customer support, may I have your PIN please?", followed by "Hello gbog, and why are you calling today?". You respond with a simple "I'd like to pay my phone bill" and the conversation continues. > With touchscreens in everyone pocket, I bet these usability nightmares will be replaced with apps or websites. What happens when you don't have a touchscreen in your pocket? Touchscreens are magical and the current rage, but there's no reason to believe they are the last word in HCI. What about Google glass? Implants? Some other form-factor we haven't yet imagined? Voice recognition will become faster than using apps, it's already happening! Telling Siri to "set an alarm for 9:30 tomorrow" is much faster than unlocking your phone, finding the right app, waiting for it to open, then messing with those damned spinners. > So, in all, voice control, Siri and Google Now seem to be technological dead-ends Siri is a vision of the future. For the first time (if you'll allow some narrative license) you can have something resembling a conversation with your computer. You talk to it like you would anybody else, and it tells you what you'd like to know. Speech is the fastest method we have of dumping information from our brains, it's incredibly natural, and it's nearly universal; I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually became our primary method of controlling computers. I don't want to make this comment too long, but a similar argument applies to Page's vision of predicting your needs. You are focusing too much on the present and not enough on the futures potential.