[PascalsMugger]

It's amazing to think about kids growing up with a wonder box in their house that tells them the answer to any question when they yell at it. It's like straight out of the fables or science fiction of the past. I hope this result in people generally having better bullshit detectors in the next generation, and not some other unintended side effect like making them enthralled to said wonder box.

[shostack]

What I've wondered is how much non-verbal context will be lost through such an interface. Today, when I'm trying to verify the authenticity or quality of something, it is a game that goes something like this:

1. Google it and click least spammy looking link (gauged by the URL, although that's no guarantee). I also see what sort of JS they try to load, if it is absolutely bloated with ad tags, etc.

2. Try to gauge from the design and other content of the site how genuine the answer might be. Are there affiliate links for anything they recommend peppered throughout? That's a signal it might not be unbiased info. Unfortunately, this is where judging a book by its cover comes into play as well. Some poorly designed sites buck the trend, but they are also prominent with spammy sites.

3. Find other sources to see if there is any consistent logic with said answer/product review/etc.

4. Make a decision hopefully.

So many of those pieces of the puzzle just aren't available when you limit your input/output to a system like this. There are obvious tradeoffs here--I just hope we don't lose the ability to make more informed decisions. Already I hate things like Apple obfuscating the full URL in the URL bar.

[grillvogel]

I think a more likely result is that when confronted with a choice between what people see and what the computer tells them they will believe the computer.