[97-109-107]

Two recent events suggest to me that this type of analytical look on interaction modes is commonly underappreciated in the industry. I write this partially from the perspective of a disillusioned student of interaction design.

1. Recent news of vehicle manufacturers moving away from touchscreens

2. Chatbot gold rush of 2018 where most business were sold chatbots under the guise of cost-saving

(edit: formatting)

[p_j_w]

I'm not sure I understand point 1 here. Do you mean that vehicle manufacturers moving away from touchscreens is bad or that they would never have moved to them in the first place if they had properly investigated the idea?

[97-109-107]

The latter - had they given proper thought to the consequences of moving into touch-screens they would've never gone there. Obviously I'm generalizing and discarding the impact of novelty on sales and marketing.

[EGreg]

It seems everyone is in a rush to LLMify their interfaces same as the chatbot rush. Same as the blockchain all the things rush. And so on.

I thought about interfaces a lot and realizdd that, for most applications, a well-designed GUI and API is essential. For composability, there can be standards developed. LLMs are good for generating instructions in a language, that can be sort of finagled into API instructions. Then they can bring down the requirements to be an expert in a specific GUI or API and might open up more abilities for people.

Well, and for artwork, LLMs can do a lot more. They can give even experts a sort of superhuman access to models that are “smooth” or “fuzzy” rather than with rigid angles. They can write a lot of vapid bullshit text for instance, or make a pretty believable photo effect that works for most people!

[throwuwu]

Vapid bullshit is just the default style since it’s the most common format on the web. If you provide a style example, hard data or the right magic words it can produce any type of written content you want.