David Galbraith has a smart + straightforward way to frame how AI will change the user interface.
First he imagines taking creating prompts and wrapping them up as buttons:
The best prompts now are quite simple, leaving AI to handle how to answer a question. Meanwhile AI chat suffers from the same problem from command lines to Alexa - how can i remember what to ask? Only this time the problem is exacerbated by the fact that AI is capable of practically anything making the task less one of remembering commands but a creative one of coming up with great questions or delivering an interface to discover them and then wrapping the resulting prompts as buttons.
(Which honestly would be amazing on its own: I have a few prompts I use regularly including Diane, my transcription assistant, and I have nowhere to keep them or run them or share them except for text files and my terminal history.)
And then he uses the concept of buttons to explain how a full AI interface can be truly different:
AI buttons are different from, say Photoshop menu commands in that they can just be a description of the desired outcome rather than a sequence of steps (incidentally why I think a lot of agents’ complexity disappears). For example Photoshop used to require a complex sequence of tasks (drawing around elements with a lasso etc.) to remove clouds from an image. With AI you can just say ‘remove clouds’ and then create a remove clouds button. An AI interface is a ‘semantic interface’.
Aha!
The buttons concept is not essential for this insight (though it’s necessary for affordances); the final insight is what matters.
I would perhaps say “intent” rather than “semantic.”
i.e. the user expresses the intent to remove clouds
and then, today, is required to follow interface bureaucracy to achieve that. AI removes the bureaucracy.
And then: there are some intents which are easy to say but can’t be simply met using the bureaucracy of interface elements like buttons, drop-downs, swipes and lists. There are cognitive ergonomic limits to the human interface with software; with hardware there are physical limits to the control panel too. This constrains what we can do with our products as much as if they didn’t have that functionality at all.
So removing the interface bureaucracy is not about simplicity but about increasing expressiveness and capability.
What does it look like if we travel down the road of intent-maxing?
There’s a philosophy from the dawn of computing, DWIM a.k.a. Do What I Mean (Wikipedia).
Coined by computer scientist Warren Teitelman in 1966 and here explained by Larry Masinter in 1981: DWIM embodies a pervasive philosophy of user interface design.
DWIM is an embodiment of the idea that the user is interacting with an agent who attempts to interpret the user’s request from contextual information. Since we want the user to feel that he is conversing with the system, he should not be stopped and forced to correct himself or give additional information in situations where the correction or information is obvious.
Yes!
Squint and you can see ChatGPT as a DWIM UI: it never, never, never says “syntax error.”
Now, arguably it should come back and ask for clarifications more often, and in particular DWIM (and AI) interfaces are more successful the more they have access to the user’s context (current situation, history, environment, etc).
But it’s a starting point. The algo is: design for capturing intent and then DWIM; iterate until that works. AI unlocks that.
This perspective sheds some light on why OpenAI + others are chasing the mythical Third Device (The Verge). (Maybe it’s a hat.)
A DWIM AI-powered UI needs maximum access to context (to interpret the user and also for training) and to get as close as possible to the point of intent.
btw I’m not convinced the answer looks like One Device To Rule Them All but that’s another story.
It’s interesting to consider what a philosophy of Do What I Mean might lead to in a physical environment rather than just phones and PCs, say with consumer hardware.
Freed from interface bureaucracy, you want to optimise for capturing user intent with ease, expressiveness, and resolution – very different from the low bandwidth interface paradigm of jabbing single fingers at big buttons.
So I’ve talked before about high bandwidth computer input, speculatively in terms of Voders, pedals, and head cursors (2021) or more pragmatically with voice, gesture, and gaze for everything.
But honestly as a vision you can’t do better than Put-That-There (1982!!!!) by the Architecture Machine Group at MIT.
Here’s a short video demo: multimodal voice + pointing with a big screen and two-way conversation.
Like, let’s just do that?
(One observation is that I don’t think this necessarily leads to a DynamicLand-style programmable environment; Put-There-There works as a multimodal intent interface even without end-user programming.)
Anyway.
Remove clouds.
David Galbraith has a smart + straightforward way to frame how AI will change the user interface.
First he imagines taking creating prompts and wrapping them up as buttons:
(Which honestly would be amazing on its own: I have a few prompts I use regularly including Diane, my transcription assistant, and I have nowhere to keep them or run them or share them except for text files and my terminal history.)
And then he uses the concept of buttons to explain how a full AI interface can be truly different:
Aha!
The buttons concept is not essential for this insight (though it’s necessary for affordances); the final insight is what matters.
I would perhaps say “intent” rather than “semantic.”
i.e. the user expresses the intent to and then, today, is required to follow interface bureaucracy to achieve that. AI removes the bureaucracy.
And then: there are some intents which are easy to say but can’t be simply met using the bureaucracy of interface elements like buttons, drop-downs, swipes and lists. There are cognitive ergonomic limits to the human interface with software; with hardware there are physical limits to the control panel too. This constrains what we can do with our products as much as if they didn’t have that functionality at all.
So removing the interface bureaucracy is not about simplicity but about increasing expressiveness and capability.
What does it look like if we travel down the road of intent-maxing?
There’s a philosophy from the dawn of computing, DWIM a.k.a. Do What I Mean (Wikipedia).
Coined by computer scientist Warren Teitelman in 1966 and here explained by Larry Masinter in 1981: DWIM
Yes!
Squint and you can see ChatGPT as a DWIM UI: it never, never, never says “syntax error.”
Now, arguably it should come back and ask for clarifications more often, and in particular DWIM (and AI) interfaces are more successful the more they have access to the user’s context (current situation, history, environment, etc).
But it’s a starting point. The algo is: design for capturing intent and then DWIM; iterate until that works. AI unlocks that.
This perspective sheds some light on why OpenAI + others are chasing the mythical Third Device (The Verge). (Maybe it’s a hat.)
A DWIM AI-powered UI needs maximum access to context (to interpret the user and also for training) and to get as close as possible to the point of intent.
btw I’m not convinced the answer looks like One Device To Rule Them All but that’s another story.
It’s interesting to consider what a philosophy of Do What I Mean might lead to in a physical environment rather than just phones and PCs, say with consumer hardware.
Freed from interface bureaucracy, you want to optimise for capturing user intent with ease, expressiveness, and resolution – very different from the low bandwidth interface paradigm of jabbing single fingers at big buttons.
So I’ve talked before about high bandwidth computer input, speculatively in terms of Voders, pedals, and head cursors (2021) or more pragmatically with voice, gesture, and gaze for everything.
But honestly as a vision you can’t do better than Put-That-There (1982!!!!) by the Architecture Machine Group at MIT.
Here’s a short video demo: multimodal voice + pointing with a big screen and two-way conversation.
Like, let’s just do that?
(One observation is that I don’t think this necessarily leads to a DynamicLand-style programmable environment; Put-There-There works as a multimodal intent interface even without end-user programming.)
Anyway.