> In fact, McDonalds found that their sales rose by 30% when they eliminated chatting from the process, so clearly people found it to be a hinderance.

That's a good supporting argument, but I don't think McDonald's adequately represents more complex discussions.

▲

9rx 3 days ago | parent [-]

What is representative, though, is simple use: All you have to do is use chat to see how awful it is.

It is better than nothing. It is arguably the best we have right now to make use of the technology. But, unless this is AI thing is all hype and goes nowhere, smart minds aren't going to sit idle as progression moves towards maturity.

▲

nailer 3 days ago | parent [-]

I imagine it's like how humans converse: we talk, but sometimes we need diagrams and pictures.

"What burgers do you have?"

(expands to show a set of pictures)

"I'll have the thing with chicken and lettuce"

▲

solid_fuel 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem with UX driven by this kind of interface is latency. Right now, this kind of flow goes more like:

"What burgers do you have?"

(Thinking...) (4 seconds later:)

(expands to show a set of pictures)

"Sigh. I'll have the thing with chicken and lettuce"

(Thinking...) (3 seconds later:)

> "Do you mean the Crispy McChicken TM McSandwich TM?"

"Yes"

(Thinking...) (4 seconds later:)

> "Would you like anything else?"

"No"

(Thinking...) (5 seconds later:)

> "Would you like to supersize that?"

"Is there a human I can speak with? Or perhaps I can just point and grunt to one of the workers behind the counter? Anyone?"

It's just exasperating, and it's not easy to overcome until local inference is cheap and common. Even if you do voice recognition on the kiosk, which probably works well enough these days, there's still the round trip to OpenAI and then the inference time there. And of course, this whole scenario gets even worse and more frustrating anywhere with subpar internet.

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Right. We talk when it is the only viable choice in front of us, but as soon as options are available, talk goes out the window pretty quickly. It is not our ideal mode of communication, just the lowest common denominator that works in most situations.

But, now, remember, unlike humans, AI can do things like materialize diagrams and pictures out of "thin air" and can even make them interactive right on the spot. It can also do a whole lot of things that you and I haven't even thought of yet. It is not bound by the same limitations of the human mind and body. It is not human.

For what reason is there to think that chat will remain the primary mode of using this technology? It is the easiest to conceive of way to use the technology, so it is unsurprising that it is what we got first, but why would we stop here? Chat works, but it is not good. There are so many unexplored possibilities to find better and we're just getting started.

	▲	nailer 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think chat will remain dominant, but we'll go into other modes as needed. There's no more efficient way to communicate "show me the burgers" than saying it - thinking it is possible, but sending thoughts is too far off right now. Then you switch to imagery or hand gestures or whatever else when they're a better way to show something.