Simple example: Adding something to a reminder list, but the name of your lists don't exactly match the list you said to add to.
Prompt: "Add milk to my shopping list"
Siri: "I didn't find a shopping list, do you want to create one?"
ChatGPT (when asked to pick from my actual lists), properly identifies the "groceries" list as the intended list.
I wouldn't dream of trying to use a Siri, it sounds absolutely maddening. All I expect is that when I press a key on the keyboard the character I commanded with my key press shows up on the screen before I can blink, and does so exactly once.
Sounds infuriating to me. (To be clear, I don't have any always-(maybe)-on mics in my life, I doubt Hey Google or Bard or whatever is much better.)
I use Siri to add stuff to my grocery list and set timers. That's it. It's useful when I'm in the kitchen to just say what needs to go on this list instead of remembering to write it down later.
The day when Siri or Google or whatever can make the corrections I mentioned in my higher post will improve it vastly.
Taking a completely different type of example, image editing. Let's say you ask your computer to remove a blemish in a photo. A professional could remove it, maybe better even, without AI. They know the tools to use, the keys to press, and effect change. Regular people don't give a crap about that, they want to circle the item (or otherwise identify it) and click "remove." When the computer removes the selected item they're happy, and generative AI is working on THAT type of solution.
It's not here yet, so yes you're right that Siri IS maddening to use.
This feels dangerously close to a lack of empathy for the user. I understand that's not your intention, in fact the opposite. But in order to accept the notion that users actually want an intelligent employee instead of a tool I have to believe that everyone truly wants to be a manager instead of an individual contributor. I don't believe it.
Take a simpler case, hammering in a nail. What I want from my hammer is for it to disappear and become an extension of my arm. I just want to hammer in the nail. I don't want to negotiate with the hammer about how it's going to strike the nail, all I want is to hit the nail. There's no amount of "clever" the hammer can be which will help. Cleverness can only hurt my user experience.
In your example, what recourse does the user have if the AI didn't do the job the way they wanted? Removing something from an image implies (probably? or maybe not?) that the void is "backfilled" somehow. What if they're not happy with the backfill job? Do they have to argue with the tool about it? Will the tool take their feedback well or will it become a fight?
I think, generally, giving users tools that scale like hammers is the way to go. A hammer in the hands of a skilled carpenter, blacksmith, or cobbler with 30yr experience is no different than the same hammer in the hands of a 2yo child learning to drive their first nail. But that hammer's utility will scale with that child's skill for their entire lifetime. There's no "beginner" vs "advanced" distinction. What makes us (as computer hammer builders) believe that we can distinguish between "beginner" or "advanced" computer hammers? Or "regular" vs "special" users?
EDIT: or maybe we're not building hammers, instead we're building dishwashers. Dishwasher users aren't supposed to be skilled beyond loading and unloading the dishwasher, and hitting the start button. Do "regular users" really want an appliance, or do they want a tool?
EDIT: another way to phrase it -- are computers "bicycles for the mind" or are they just a bus?
Better keyboard text prediction and power management. A competent Siri.
This, but it is really exciting because for the first time, you can just tell your computer what to do. Not just a given set of tasks, but e.g. "go to my gym and book a slot with my personal trainer"; "contact Shauna and set up a meeting to talk about X, then book me tickets to get there".
Think about how much monkey-work we all do with our smartphones. We might look back in 10 years and laugh at the idea that we had to press buttons all the time.
But iOS users don't really know what they're missing from GBoard, so.
Most of the time I just wish I could plug my full sized keyboard into the phone, that would fix it completely most of the time (except, obviously, when I'm not near my desk).
An ideal compromise would be physical buttons on the device for when it's necessary and the ability to easily use my workstation's external keyboard (dock + switch maybe?) the rest of the time.
EDIT: Now that I think of it.. let me plug in a mouse too and give me a real OS (maybe in a container like you get on a Chromebook) and i can just replace my workstation with the docked phone. But then I would buy only half as many computers and wouldn't need all that GPU compute to train a bunch of statistical models so I guess that doesn't work for the computer companies.
I'm sad there isn't more built around Android's AVF. I thought for sure, by now, we were going to have "Linux on Android" ala Crostini.
How does "generative AI" help ?
It doesn't even seem to matter anymore. The tail is fully wagging the dog. Wall Street doesn't really care what companies are doing with AI, how they are using it, or whether their use of AI is going to actually drive earnings. They just care that they are using it. If a company says "We're doing AI blah blah blah" that's enough: investors are happy and stock price goes up.
On the other hand there’s what the washing machine, mechanized farm equipment, etc. did. A slow shift in how many people are required to do a job. There were no absolute jobs lost, just a shift in the economy.
Chances are it’ll be somewhere in between.
EDIT: actually, I overcommitted a little bit with "really good Wikipedia search". I can rely on Wikipedia search to not invent stuff from whole cloth and try to pass it off as results.
The idea here is that it won't stop at 25%. Even if you were to accept this premise, maybe you're just thinking about chat gpt 3.5 or 4. But it really doesn't take a lot more imagination to think about what version 7 or 30 might do.
The same goes for the image/video generation models. Smaller production studios might forgo several artist hires and just generate the stuff they need. Large ones will have an enormous pool of unemployed creatives and won't have to pay them much at all.
Auto-completing function bodies with stack overflow content is cool! I'm not trying to say this technology isn't doing anything. It's clearly doing something "cool". But that doesn't necessarily actually make anyone more productive. That seems like an extraordinary claim (at least based on my own small experience working with it), so I'd expect to see some extraordinary evidence.
I've seen new colleagues use co-pilot at work and it definitely increases the amount of stuff they can now figure out for themselves within a given time.
EDIT: what I really mean is what makes people think this is a commercially viable thing to spend time and money on? Like, say one of these companies hits some magic jackpot and discovers "AGI".. then what? Is that worth money, somehow?