Conversational interfaces are superior... when the counterparties have context.
In the parent situation, I don't want a GPT spoken interface to give me the top 20 events: I want it to give me 1-2 events that I am most likely to enjoy.
In the same way that actual conversations take into account tone, facial expression, etc. to jump straight to important information.
I thought that's where Google was going with their "we have all your data because we run all your services", but it seems they Microsoftified before they could get services cooperating for the larger good.
> Conversational interfaces are superior... when the counterparties have context.
Why? I find conversational interfaces poor for common data retrieval. I can read faster than you can speak. I can type faster than I can speak. I'm staring at a screen 14 hours a day anyway. Just show me the list of 20 events and sort it by what I am most likely to enjoy. Provide links for more information. Show me visual promotional materials. If I need to cross reference it with my calendar it's easier if all the information is visual.
When I got to this point in your comment, I remembered the Seinfeld episode where Kramer was recreating moviefone and tried to speak a trailer, with mouth-sound-effects.
“I want it to give me 1-2 events that I am most likely to enjoy.“
That's the core property of voice interfaces and I see surprisingly little awareness for that: it does not matter if it's a phone menu beep code tree or a GPT or a star trek ship's computer: the low bandwidth linearity of the readout will never go away.
This is what makes voice interfaces so hugely attractive for the "searchy advertisial complex": if you haven't bought enough ads that the almighty relevance algorithm (1) puts you in the top spot you're out. What used to be the first page on the web is the top spot in voice, second place is first loser. No amount of intelligence can ever change that, voice interface implies handing over control in an unprecedented way.
((1) technically, claims that result ranks are not sold aren't exactly lies, when result ranks don't go to the highest bidder. But that does not mean that ad spend isn't a contributing signal in any number of deeper layers so in the end results appear indistinguishable from highest bidder, only that buyers don't get any contractually guaranteed result list exposure for their money)
I don't want a GPT spoken interface to give me the top 20 events: I want it to give me 1-2 events that I am most likely to enjoy.
This is fundamentally impossible for a computer though, because even if a computer has perfect historical information about you it can't know some random things that would change your mind in the moment. For example, if you've been to every gig a band has done for years, but at the last one your girlfriend dumped you, a recommendation engine is still going to suggest that band's gigs even though it's unlikely you want to be reminded about them. To most users that immediately looks like a bad recommendation. If the system is only suggesting 1 thing then the whole system looks broken.
The only way around that is to increase the number of recommendations. Hence every system giving out 10+ options - because the people who make it want it to be slightly better than useless.
Not fundamentally impossible. Just as a friend may know not to recommend the gig as they're aware of the breakup, so can an AI. Heck after conversing with Pi a few weeks ago, I'm fairly convinced it'd at this point be able to handle that kind of nuance if it had access to the relevant data.
"I've recognized you removed all future calendar events related to {girlfriend} and your recent text messages concerning her had a negative sentiment. Did you break up?"
Not the world I'd want to live in... but for people less concerned about their data, I can't say it wouldn't be useful!
> For example, if you've been to every gig a band has done for years, but at the last one your girlfriend dumped you, a recommendation engine is still going to suggest that band's gigs even though it's unlikely you want to be reminded about them.
I mean sure, but just think about it, wouldn't the same happen if you have a friend telling you about the event? Or if you had an attentive concierge trying to organise programs for you? How would you like them to handle it? Not by blindly listing more programs that is for sure.
"Hey you love Blasted Monkeys. Did you know they are having a gig this weekend?"
"Nah, man. We had a bad breakup with Samantha at their last one. And besides it was really her thing and I was just tagging along."
"Oh, that's rough. I didn't know. Blast those monkeys then. How about a day a the beach then? There will be a surf class at ..."
This is the kind of interface a spoken event recommender should have. Is this much harder than just listing events? Yes, it is much harder. The problem is that if you don't go all the way then it falls into a weird uncanny valley. It feels like you are talking with a human, but a very stupid one.
conversational interfaces are superior as the input method but text and images is always superior as the output method (except for driving without FSD or another rare scenarios)
In the parent situation, I don't want a GPT spoken interface to give me the top 20 events: I want it to give me 1-2 events that I am most likely to enjoy.
In the same way that actual conversations take into account tone, facial expression, etc. to jump straight to important information.
I thought that's where Google was going with their "we have all your data because we run all your services", but it seems they Microsoftified before they could get services cooperating for the larger good.