[rrego]

The author didn't exactly spell it out, but I found the suggestions to be so adequate that they become what i want to say. They become limiting in a sense.

The simulated conversation image is a great example. After seeing those responses, the response 'aww so cute' or 'Love the daisy' are about about the same or better than what I can or would care to think of in a text conversation. Is there really a better way to think answer that and why should I waste the time to do so?

[panic]

I think that's the point of the article: using "smart replies" makes it seem like you're so disinterested in your conversation partner that you consider coming up with your own responses a waste of time.

[1stop]

But isn't that a pretty common use case?

Do people on chat with their nearest and dearest? Or do they chat with a mix of people who they may like or even dislike.

[TeMPOraL]

It is, and honestly - I find expecting from the other side to be always fully committed to you in a conversation to be a sign of disrespect. I guess some people want to feel more important to others that they really are.

It also depends on the discussion. Whenever someone talks to me about something requiring my personal attention, I pay that attention. But most conversations with people are trivial, and expecting someone to drop everything they were concentrating on and pay full attention to your trivial question is, again, a sign of disrespect.

[TeMPOraL]

> The author didn't exactly spell it out, but I found the suggestions to be so adequate that they become what i want to say. They become limiting in a sense.

This effect is the only one thing that worries me with those replies. It won't be good if people start to choose only from suggestions instead of choosing them only when they are appropriate. And, as you observed, the effect can be subtle.

But the very idea of a computer typing up the response for you? I don't mind that at all - that's what computers are for, to let you do more with less effort.