My personal hot take is that the product people (engineers too probably) at these companies are just straight up lazy. Yes, a new UI paradigm is hard, but it's been painfully obvious that chat just absolutely sucks. It's also obvious that some DSL-ish thing is possible, something that just does token juggling and the end-user sees some UI behavior.

I know this all sounds abstract. I've been mulling over it for the past year and it's very hard; and LLMs are super janky and inconsistent so it's 100% not trivial. So in some sense I understand why a lazy bottom-of-the-barrel "chat interface" has become the de facto standard.

▲

nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can you elaborate? How in the world would I interface with claude other than sending it messages?

	▲	dvt 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> How in the world would I interface with claude other than sending it messages? The protocol will of course be `text -> text` for the typical LLM (though some new models are structured, as we saw yesterday with Jev). Even so, the user doesn't need to be exposed to the protocol (almost ever). It's not like I'm crafting a POST request to send this form. There's a lot of room for window dressing, and I look at AI like I look at the touch-screen. It was a fun technical toy until people (mostly Apple) poured in a lot of serious effort into "ok, how do we make this pleasant to use, intuitive, and genuinely useful?"
	▲	fragmede 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		For the abstract "you can do anything" product, you want an open ended interface, but if I'm, eg, renting a car, is a free form text box really the way to go? The rental company knows exactly what information they need from me before they'll rent me a car, so a free form text box so the computer can ask me questions one by one vs a traditional form, seems suboptimal.

▲

ieie 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]