For now almost all applications of ChatGPT happen in chat windows because it requires no further integration, but there's no reason to expect things will always be this way.
I hate the idea of having to use a mouse to click on a visual GUI to navigate a file system in order to make use of its functionality.
It's less the case today, even among developers, but it wasn't that long ago that I remember that any serious technical user of a computer took it as a point of pride to touch the mouse as little as possible. They're also still correct in that thinking. The command line is a very powerful UI with lots of benefits and while the mouse makes navigating the OS easier it's still much more limited than command line usage.
Touch screen interfaces are another example of an easier UI that ultimately feels even more limited. But people still plug their iPad pros in to magic keyboard folios frequently.
Having worked with these tools everyday for awhile now the "AI will change UX" is such a better take than "AI will conquer the world!". AI does fundamentally open up new work flows and user experiences, many of which do over a lot of potential improvements over their predecessors.
At the same time I doubt we'll see a world where we don't end up using the command line for the majority of serious technical work.
Depends o the use case. Touch screen is much more powerful than command line for maps, for example. Or for drawing. Mouse + keyboard is much more powerful than just keyboard for DAWs. And so on and so on.
Ironically, studies have shown that mouse-based interfaces are more efficient for practically all filesystem use-cases compared to CLI interfaces.
Despite objectively faster-time-to-solution, people self-report that they "feel" that the mouse GUIs are slower.
That's because there's fewer actions per second when using a mouse. It's a smooth gliding motion and then a single click, versus many keystrokes in a row with a CLI.
Rapid actions feel faster, even if it takes more wall-clock time to achieve a task.
Keep this in mind next time you sneer at a "bad graphic user interface" for being "slow".
For your use case, on macOS open Automator.app and add three actions
1. "ask for finder items" (the source folder)
2. "filter finder items" (by name)
3. "copy finder items" (to target folder)
Repeatability and configurability is where the GUI action shines. With only one click more you can
- add filtering by size, opening date, modification date, etc. in addition or a combination thereof
- do the same action for multiple source folders and the same target folder
- choose whether you want to replace existing files
- add it as a folder action that runs automatically on modification of the source folder
Arguably much slower on the terminal.
Alternative on macOS, that works on all other major OS with similar shortcuts and a similar feature set, just not repeatable:
1. Go to source folder (shift-cmd-G)
2. Filter (cmd-shift-F)
3. Copy (cmd-A, cmd-C)
4. Go to target folder (shift-cmd-G)
5. Paste (cmd-V)
Do you have any sources I can read though? I always find it fascinating when our perceptions are so off like this.
Plus I think there's a nuance to what you're saying:
UX is not just about making the best channel surfing interface, which is essentially what phones/tablets are. We need UIs that are capable of rich interaction and expression of ideas, creation, etc.
Walking around and thinking out loud with the computer.
And as for third party solutions, you have watchGPT for Apple Watch with voice commands and support for adding it as a watch complication.
It feels like being one of those Futurama heads in a jar that can’t do anything by themselves.