4 ms·

So here's the main problem I see with this: >Anyone who can articulate their ideas in language can implement them I'd be shocked if even 10% of the users who

So here's the main problem I see with this: >Anyone who can articulate their ideas in language can implement them I'd be shocked if even 10% of the users who can't navigate a GUI could accurately describe what they want the software to do. To the user who doesn't know they can use Ctrl-Z to undo, the first half dozen times the AI mangles their inherited spreadsheet might be enough to put them off the idea.

ffhhj 4y ago
But those who can articulate will have a very quick automation tool to scrap data from the web.
- tartoran 4y ago
  I’ve been thinking for a while about a common people programming language able to interface with machines with pure casual conversation ( not exact commands) and I feel something it’s coming in the next decades even if not earlier. Imagine the ability to casually chat with a widget which understands flawlessly and where most devices would be able to communicate as well. This could eventually be used in psychotherapy, everything automation around humans and in nefarious ways as well. I’m only hopeful of a human augmentation scenario but there are countless ways it could become totally different.
1MachineElf 4y ago
They don't need to explain what they want the software to do, they just need to explain what they want ACT-1 to do. I agree with you that it won't be basic users, however, use anything long enough and you will become an expert. This vision would fundamentally change how people interact with computers.
jacobr1 4y ago
Certainly there is a huge middle ground. Vague, but common, use cases might have more articulate versions of the commands inferred. I find myself learning new tools all the time - I certainly have enough domain knowledge of many things to express intent without describing implementation. I suspect plenty of people are similar enough - just operating at different levels of abstraction. What I find more concerning would be people operating under misconceptions, or being more precise than needed, thus not actually accomplishing their objective with the introduction of irrelevant detail.

ffhhj 4y ago

But those who can articulate will have a very quick automation tool to scrap data from the web.

tartoran 4y ago
I’ve been thinking for a while about a common people programming language able to interface with machines with pure casual conversation ( not exact commands) and I feel something it’s coming in the next decades even if not earlier. Imagine the ability to casually chat with a widget which understands flawlessly and where most devices would be able to communicate as well. This could eventually be used in psychotherapy, everything automation around humans and in nefarious ways as well. I’m only hopeful of a human augmentation scenario but there are countless ways it could become totally different.

1MachineElf 4y ago

They don't need to explain what they want the software to do, they just need to explain what they want ACT-1 to do. I agree with you that it won't be basic users, however, use anything long enough and you will become an expert. This vision would fundamentally change how people interact with computers.

jacobr1 4y ago

Certainly there is a huge middle ground. Vague, but common, use cases might have more articulate versions of the commands inferred. I find myself learning new tools all the time - I certainly have enough domain knowledge of many things to express intent without describing implementation. I suspect plenty of people are similar enough - just operating at different levels of abstraction. What I find more concerning would be people operating under misconceptions, or being more precise than needed, thus not actually accomplishing their objective with the introduction of irrelevant detail.