4 ms·
>Is it me, or is the benefit of that extremely small? I can move my finger and tap the 'Instagram' icon quicker than I can say "Instagram". That's because you'
by sergiotapia 12y ago
>Is it me, or is the benefit of that extremely small? I can move my finger and tap the 'Instagram' icon quicker than I can say "Instagram".
That's because you're picturing it as the slow clunky voice detection we have today. Imagine just picking up your phone and saying naturally: "untog's instagram" and it loads up, no touching no prompting.
- untog 12y agoEr, I still don't understand how that is quicker. You mean I get to skip unlocking my keypad? Apple's fingerprint scanner thing is a much better solution to that problem. And how often does that get triggered by accident? I saw to a friend, "did you see my photo on Instagram", and my phone loads the app. I'm sorry, but voice is an awful interface. And it has been for decades, ever since people first proposed the idea of office workers sitting around dictating their work. It never happened, and that's a good thing.
- sergiotapia 12y agoI know what you're saying but try to imagine a fully-functioning voice AI. Like in the movie Her. In this hypothetical situation you just talk naturally to your device and it knows what you want and can realistically understand you. That's the future.
- untog 12y agoBut an app like Instagram doesn't make any sense in that world. A fully-functioning voice AI only works over voice - once you have to do something visual it loses its purpose. Imagine browsing flight choices by voice only. How is that better than looking at a table? In any case, I find it interesting that some people walked away from Her and held it up as an example of our technological future, while others walked away and held it up as an example of a horrible dystopian nightmare. To each their own, I suppose.
- jrochkind1 12y agoThat is, however, the opposite of what the OP is proposing.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]