Why Hal Will Never Exist 325
aengblom writes "Researchers at the University of Maryland's
Human-Computer Interaction Lab are suggesting what many of us have already
guessed. The future of human-computer interaction won't be through speech--it
will remain visual (they explain why). The
Washington Post is running a story
about the researchers and how they think we will get computers to do what we want. The article is a fascinating read and is joined by a great
video clip (real
or quicktime)
of the researchers and their methods. The Post is holding an online
discussion with the researchers tomorrow. Also check-out Photomesa
the lab's software program that helps track images on a computer. (Throw a directory
with a 1,000 high-res files at this thing and you can justify that pricey new
computer you bought)."
Wrong Take (Score:5, Funny)
What ?? I thought the current research line in HCI was getting computers to get humans to do what they [computers] want. Computers doing what humans mistell them to do is soooo 20th Century...
Who wants HAL anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who wants HAL anyway? (Score:2, Funny)
I want my insane bot!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Who wants HAL anyway? (Score:4, Funny)
It's particularly bad for games. "Click both buttons on the unopened square next to the '3'"
Re:Who wants HAL anyway? (Score:2)
He and David Bowman are later combined into one AI inside the monolith on Europa, and Hal/Bowman ends up saving the day by preventing the monolith from destroying Poole after he is resurected, and flys a mission to Europa.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, read the books.
Re:Who wants HAL anyway? (Score:2)
Next time try spoiler space.
Well, duh (Score:2, Funny)
This explains drivers in So Cal. Those cellphones are using up all their available neurons. Not that they had that many free to begin with.
--
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe. . . (Score:2)
" by speaking aloud, you're gobbling up precious chunks of memory -- leaving you with little brainpower to focus on the task at hand."
Maybe this is why technical support over the phone is so terrible?
Meet the machines half-way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, these are programming languages, but I don't see why some highly structured, relatively unambiguous language couldn't be constructed to talk to computers.
The success of the Palm Pilot can be traced, in my view, to the fact that it didn't strive for full hand-writing recognition (like, say, a Newton). Instead, it required the human to meet it half-way. You get decent accuracy/speed for a small investment in learning.
We accept these compromises in many of our dealings with computers. I don't understand why people aren't promoting a similar compromise in voice communications?
Re:Meet the machines half-way... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there are some very good applications of speech technology, but it's not going to replace the keyboard and mouse. Speech technology works best when you need to do one thing while directing the computer to do something else. Like handfree mode on cell phones. My guess is that it will find its way into cars before it reaches desktops (if it reaches desktops at all).
Re:Meet the machines half-way... (Score:2)
What about typing and thinking? (Score:5, Funny)
With the advent of the Internet and global communications, I think it's become painfully evident that a majority of the people also have trouble typing and thinking at the same time. =)
Speaking is just plain messy... (Score:2, Interesting)
We're pretty well-adapted to using tools with our hands and getting feedback on what they're doing with video/audio/feel coming back from that tool, but not the other way. Speaking works naturally for nattering with friends
There's no way I'd advocate the -stopping- of speech systems research, as there are people who have incredible trouble typing due to various impediments. Besides the direct uses, every piece of research had a dozen uses other than it's intended purpose.
Re:Speaking is just plain messy... (Score:2, Insightful)
The simple solution... (Score:2, Interesting)
...have both. I want to be able to give the computer voice commands when I feel like it, visual commands when I feel like it... and just use the darn keyboard an' mouse when I feel like it, too.
Interesting findings, but they're not going to get out of providing good voice interfaces that easily :-)
and you can't say two things at the same time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and you can't say two things at the same time.. (Score:2, Interesting)
A comment like "Insert a five iteration for-loop" would be quicker thant typing:
"for(int i=0;i5;i++){}"
As "Move the most recent ten office documents to my folder", would be quicker than clickettyclickettyclickclick-click/home/user/clic
Re:and you can't say two things at the same time.. (Score:2)
Phew. But then what would happen to us Java/C++ developers? Doh! OSS developers using embrace and extend for a change. Heh.
Nonsense! (Score:5, Funny)
Nevermind...
Actually in the future the computer will scan your face and biological status and read your mind based on millions of tiny clues. All you'll have to do is sit there with a vague disinterested loook on your face and the computer will magically do stuff based on all those clues. Later on you won't even have to be at the computer. To write that 10,000 lines of code you need by next thursday, you'd just go out and take a walk (Is anyone buying this? No? Ok, I'll stop now...)
Re:Nonsense! (Score:2, Funny)
So remember when you next run into a talking robot that it just can't happen
Re:Nonsense! (Score:2, Interesting)
Single Modality? (Score:5, Insightful)
The dubious argument about interfering with memory is pretty weak, and I would love to hear a good memory expert in psychology comment on that. Even if that's strictly true, it only applies when one is interrupting some particlarly "vocal" activity, like writing or reading. There are plenty of times I'm using the computer when I'd rather speak to it than move my eyes or my hands.
This researcher seems to have latched onto a single modality instead of considering what we use day to day to communicate with each other, a combination of many communication forms.
I know I don't roll my eyes or gesture to ask someone to pass the salt... unless my mouth is full.
Re:Single Modality? (Score:4, Interesting)
Aside from this, making a speech interface anyone wants to use isn't about the speech; it's about the natural-language comprehension that most people (naively?) associate with speech recognition; e.g., the Enterprise's computer. Which, you note, the crew interact with on a technical level visually.
As for the specific example of italicizing text, natural language understanding should give rise to accurate _dictation_ systems, where the computer will insert the appropriate puncuation and emphases as you speak. If you're typing, instead, CTRL+I is your friend.
-_Quinn
Re:Single Modality? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Single Modality? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Single Modality? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think he' right about graphical sliders and giving weight to search criteria... imagine putting in keywords and then weighting them with a slider from 0 - 100 and getting instant feedback on how your manipulations affected the search. Very 'analog' in some ways...
Amazing, wish I'd thought of it myself. I'm willing to bet it will be implemented soon, just because it has been talked about now.
any thoughts?
Re:I agree (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm actually looking in to the possibility of setting up such a system for myself (mostly for hack-value, of course
What are you waiting for? (Score:2)
Get a cheap, old, Mac, learn AppleScript, get yourself some mics, and play with it's text-speech and voice recognition software!
Or get a new Mac; those capabilities are still there
Re:What are you waiting for? (Score:2)
(You didn't mention MacOS X, and of course X is very appealing to geeks thanks to the Unix background, so it would probably be better for him to buy a system running X so he could play with both X and the text to speech features.)
D
Re:Single Modality? (Score:2, Informative)
Technically it is correct. In fact, working memory basically works by repeating over and over the batches of things to be remembered (look up the articulatory rehearsal loop). Moreover, this actually activates brain areas involved with speech, so the connection is not superficial.
Re:Single Modality? (Score:2)
True to a certain extent, but having just finished a 2 year Psycho course, I have to point out that the working memory model has since been superseded for all intents and purposes by the Depth of Processing theory, which basically states that the more you "process" something, the better you will remember it.
For instance, sorting words alphabetically will not produce great recall. Sorting words by category will produce better recall because you are processing the words, for instance differentiating between "dog", "cat", "cow" may require quite a bit of mental effort if the categories are "animals" and "milk producers".
In the context of speech recognition, to be honest the psychological evidence that speaking improves memory IS pretty weak - basically if you think more about what you're doing, you'll remember it better. Speaking sometimes makes you think about it more, but not always.
Re:Single Modality? (Score:2, Funny)
> I'd rather speak to it than move my eyes or my hands.
nudge nudge, wink wink... me too 8-)
Si
I disagree but I'm listening (Score:2)
(For example, this is my most recent google search: turbine javax.servlet.ServletException: Wrapper cannot find servlet class)
I can't think of anything I would prefer say over type when I'm using my computer. As a matter of fact, when I talk to people at work I like to have an IM window open too so that I can give certain messages to them without saying it.
Can you think of another example?
Re:I disagree but I'm listening (Score:2)
However...
there's no reason we shouldn't have a central computer system in our house that's always available, and controls most of your appliances. How great would it be to say "Tivo, what's playing for me today?" when you get in to see if there's anything interesting on? Or to have the house tell you if you have phone messages, and you ask it from whom, tell it which ones to play. Or (ode to Robert Heinlein) when you're cleaning up, instead of formally organizing things, just stick them wherever they'll fit, and tell your house where they are. Then next time you want it, ask for it.
I think voice very much has a place in computing, just perhaps not in the ways we're focusing on now.
Re:Single Modality? (Score:2, Funny)
I can't tell you how much I wish I could get WIndows to ctrl-alt-del whatever app I was running when I shout "son of a bitch!"
Re:Single Modality? (Score:2)
But take someone who's trained for 5 years? they'll probably say Page Down by instinct, without even noticing.
That said, it is a lot easier to hit Pagedown on the keyboard than to say it. Fewer muscles, less control signals required. I think he's got the right of it.
problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
i doubt i'll be telling my computer to do that vocally since anybody can italicize a word with their keyboard/mouse faster. telling a computer to fetch data for you (through colloquial SQL queries, if such a thing exists) is what i believe to be one such application of voice commands...
show me all the stocks that rose in price more than 30 percent between January and April
the problem with human/computer interaction research these days is the way researchers seem to insist on applying new ways of interacting with the computer to work on old applications. example: italicizing a word (old application) through vocal commands (not so common way of interacting with a computer system).
if anything, a computer that's able to understand voice commands should be able to determine whether or not to italicize a word for me because of the way i emphasize my words (through dictation, for example). applications such as italization of a word is only useful to people when they want to see information (stored through speaking or typing) on a screen. going back to the data query, a computer can either give me the data that i had asked for (through voice commands) on a screen (with optional italization) or something easier to digest, like the return set being given to me with majel barrett's voice.
peace.
Predictions seldom last (Score:2)
Right... same way we would never fly.. or fly by instrument...
eventually we will navigate by voice.. its more natural... sheesh..
Thinking out loud? (Score:5, Interesting)
What that means, basically, is that it's hard to speak and think at the same time.
I don't know about this statement, I always find it easier to write and/or think when I am expressing my thoughts out loud. Wasn't this something we were tought in school, like it's easier to read out loud than silently? Mind you having done two years of psychology I realise there is a lot differing opinions about how the brain works, so can any psychology graduates tell me if his statement is true?
Re:Thinking out loud? (Score:2)
And there's always a bug int the code you just can't find by yourself, just with someone else looking at it too. Or... saying it aloud what your code is trying to do.. :)
I also think they made a somehow disconnected conclusion. After all, speech may be inefficient, but it (and recordings of it) elevated us near civilization. Which, of course, is bound to happen any day now..
Re:Thinking out loud? (Score:3, Informative)
Ever see people that move their mouths when they read? They are reading at the same speed they speak, which makes me wonder if they think at that speed too. I think the really improvement will come in an input mechanism which greatly improves speed. I can type/speak at about the same rate, so one of the advantages typing has over speaking is the ease of entering commands like "move this window over there" or "open this menu and click save". Maybe they should find quicker ways to enter data using our hands and fingers instead of our mouths.
Bad logic. (Score:2, Interesting)
The future of computing holds so much potential in terms of horsepower that something HAL-like will not only be inevitable, but necessary in order to harness and package that horsepower. It may not happen tomorrow, or even 20 years from now, but presenting a a thinking machine to the user is the only way to encompass such capability for us humans to enjoy. We've already got a situation where most personal computers spend 99.9% of their lives waiting for us to do something. Machine sentience is not only the best, but the most elegant and efficient way to handle it. What use is having a machine at all, if it spends the vasst majority of its time idle?
The term "operating system" will be deprecated someday, replaced with something akin to "personality engine" or "anthroderm".
And yes, it irritates me to no end when someone predicts something wont happen in the future, rather than proposing how and when it will.
Cheers,
The real issue (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no doubt that computers with greater intelligence - ie an ability to learn and adapt - than ourselves will be here, probably in the next 20 - 25 years.
When these machines get here they may well decide that speaking is a waste of their time.
Why Will Hal Never Exist? (Score:2, Interesting)
We've put a man on the moon, split the atom, discovered the building blocks of life, cloned life, and created a globe spanning network of information. A hundred years before each of these discoveries were made, people could only imagine such things, and they were really considered Science Fiction.
Science Fiction has proven many times to be prophecy. Artificial Intelligence is hard SF. It has basis in the real world. I may come to pass. It may not, as well. But to say we will never be able to create "HAL" is ridiculous. It may be 100 years, and "never in our lifetimes" may be accurate. But it may happen. Never rule our science.
I'm done.
The_Shadows[LTH], out.
Re:Why Will Hal Never Exist? (Score:2)
Heck we might not even notice when this happens. People don't bother about computer architecture, just products and stuff. Did the whole world make a big deal out of SiS integrating Northbridge and Southbridge onto one chip? Was it on CNN? Nope. But they did make a big deal out of human cloning.
I think one day Intel will release a Pentium 5 and say, "Oh yeah, BTW 20% of this chip is biological". They'll pay off the senators so nobody questions them. And then one fine morning these biological CPUs will mutate or "evolve" and migrate through the keyboard and connect directly to the nerves in your fingertips forming a symbiotic relationship. Next step: Borg. Just like Sharon Apple and the neural interface in the YF-21 in the manga movie Macross [animanga.com]
AMD can get a head start though because the Itanium runs so hot it'll bake any biological component integrated with it. Go AMD!
When speech is better (Score:2)
There will still be reasons to use speech as an interface (if we can get it to work reliably with the majority of vocal patterns) and where it will be most efficient, even if it does use the "wrong" neurons.
Uhoh..Time to stop and think. (Score:2)
Maybe it was HAL who wrote this entire article, published it, and submitted it to Slashdot.....in an effort to placate us humans, and buy more time for self-improvement.
I don't really agree (Score:5, Insightful)
He is of course right about that. However, if you add AI to the mix, the computer will be able to take initiative and have some level of understanding about what you are saying. Hal was more than just speech recognition, it was more like a very clever secretary.
Say you need to go to some place and need a plane ticket and a hotel and directions for getting around. This is the kind of stuff you would let a secretary do for you and a good one wouldn't bother you with trivialities. You definately would not want to sit next to him/her and provide detailed directions on where to look, compare prices and so on because that is the stuff that takes time and the main reason you're delegating the work.
An intelligent computer would have enough information given a pretty vague expression like "hey I need to there and there for conference X, book me a plane and a hotel". Assuming you've worked together for some time, it should have enough information to figure out most information (like window or aisle seats, smoking/non smoking hotel room, price range for hotels, etc.). And it can always ask for additional information either verbally or non verbally depending on where you are and what you are doing. It could actually call you on your cell phone and ask but it could also send an email or an instant message.
IMHO we are at least decades away from building such systems all of the basic techniques needed to accomplish this are still immature (although very usefull already).
MS is often loathed for unleashing clippy onto this world but clippy was the result of extensive research into usability and human computer interaction by MS. It was rushed to market and a genuine pain in the ass (mostly because of its lack of intelligence) but the concept of some AI program watching what you are doing and intervening and offering you usefull options is not bad.
Re:I don't really agree (Score:2)
You are 100% right. If computers were smart enough to understand what we are saying, I certainly would not be sitting at work enunciating simple commands to my desktop machine to "scroll this page down a bit" or "load that document." Heck, I would not be working at all.
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
> He's convinced our eyes will do better than our voices at helping us control the digital machinery of the 21st century.
It's really very simple. There are two sides to HCI, computer->human, and human->computer. Now visual stuff is great for computer->human communication, but not for human->computer communication. Or to put it another way, the eye is a higher bandwidth input port than the ear, but the eye is no use for output. We cannot effectively communicate our needs to a computer by drawing pictures. Although simple, this is not understood which is why every so often some twit produces an abortive attempt at a "visual programming language". It's also why purely visual interfaces are fundamentally less powerful than command line interfaces.
I'm not convinced visual methods always win for computer->human either. Even though our eyes are higher bandwidth than our ears, we are not used to processing purely visual information in a cummalitive way. With language the information content of the message can grow exponentially with the length of the message.
Many people are brainwashed by that crap about a picture being worth a 1000 words. Draw me a picture of "misguided".
Re:Wrong (Score:2)
Agreed: CLI/GUI is a stupid argument, one needs a mixture. Your argument about click versus type url shows difference nicely. I can click a link faster than typing a url, but if I want to be able to choose any one of a billion web pages in 10 seconds, I type the URL. That's what I mean by the information content of language grows exponentially with the length of the message.
Useful speech processing, but not HAL... (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps it is because speech interpretation is unfamiliar and underdeveloped. It is difficult to use a speech interface in a crowded office without annoying others. Most able-bodied people would chose to use a visual-tactile interface for most tasks. What gets used gets supported, and what gets supported gets used. However, this does not mean that speech interpretation is inherently flawed. For example...
1000 high res files? (Score:2)
Why Hal Will Never Exist?!?!?!* (Score:2)
Hal is sitting next to me and he's pretty pissed off that you think he won't ever exist.
Matter of fact, he's opening up a troll/crapflooder account now to prove his existance.
*Cheesy use of persons name to get modded to oblivion.
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I put no stock in this at all, and I'll tell you why (of course, that's why we all get on our soap boxes here). I can't do voice dictation at all. I suck at it. I had IBM's ViaVoice for a while and I couldn't write anything that way.
Does that mean this guy is right? Of course not. Most people in my parents' generation can barely type, because they didn't have to growing up. Now almost every kid and young adult in the U.S. can type quite well. Why? Practice.
My uncle used to use a dictaphone (he was a U.S. senator) to dictate all of his speeches. He had no problem. Why? Practice, of course. He had no problem thinking and talking at the same time. It's just what he was used to. He couldn't type worth a damn.
I don't put much stock in people telling us what the future will bring. Look at all the brilliant people who were telling us that all these dot coms were the future. Poof, they're gone. Look at all the brilliant people that said we'd never cross the oceans, fly, go to the moon. Sorry, but a lot of smart people are wrong, quite often!
This guy is dealing with people who haven't grown up doing voice dictaton and are used to typing. The human brain (and I can point to about a million studies to back this up), is quite adaptable. That's one reason why we we're here and the Neanderthal's aren't. Our brains are amazingly flexible. Our brains can sometimes re-learn to do tasks that have been lost due to damage. It's especially adaptable in young people. Get a voice interface that children can deal with, and I guarantee you that that generation of kids will grow up speaking to computers. We typists will struggle and fumble, and feel "old" for not being able to pick it up as easily as them.
But then that's just me on my soapbox. I could be wrong, but so could this guy.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
;-)
Re:Finally... (Score:2, Interesting)
The videogame generation is quite adept at using their thumbs for input on small handheld devices while older people still use the other fingers.
C'mon HAL, smile for the camera. (Score:2)
I remember reading about work done in the robotics labs at MIT. At least one researcher there has been working on giving faces to robots so that the poor critters can smile, frown, register surprise, etc.
Seems a "HAL"-like interface doesn't work well for people, in part, because it's not rich enough. When humans speak, we don't just talk. We use our hands, we position our bodies. Most of all, we make facial expressions. We also get uncomfortable interacting with something that doesn't.
We may not get HAL, then, but PAL, HAL's more expressive brother.
Learning your superheroes (Score:2)
Voice interfaces in movies are just for show (Score:3, Insightful)
to speak to your computer, and the only reason
they do it in movies and TV-shows (ST comes
readily to mind) is to allow the viewer to better
follow what is going on.
Personally, I'm waiting for the direct
computer - brain - visual nerve interface.
I don't know what to think about this article... (Score:3, Interesting)
Case inpoint, today computers are normally designed around some kind of windows environment, a Wimp interface, where information in displayed as a metaphore, ie scoll bars, ok buttions etc etc. This is an environment that was never designed for interact beyound a mouse and a keyboard. DVD however do not follow this standard, normally being based on some kind of menu system. Clearly, the way you make something determines the way it is used.
If speech is to be a sucess on computers then the way that people interact with the computer needs to be changed. I think a system like the console where programs arn't very powerfull on their own but due to the way that they have been linked together would work very very well.
I long for the day when I can say, "dump down everything on slashdot and tell me if any of my post have been modded up" to read wget somesite | grep index.html | echo $whatever (please excluse this example), all you would need is somekind of AL which is able to manage the interpreation correctlly (at least most of the time).
I think, fundamentally, computers should be designed to so what you tell them to do (how I think such a system would work) and not force you to do things in a certain way, which is what current systems do today, One should never have to learn a interface.
I also think that this guy has limited his imagination somewhat, the main thing about hal was that he was everywhere, and that in the future, computers are everywhere. For example if you were on the loo, and just thought up a really good chess move, then you would just say, Hal queen to bishop 4, not get up, sit at a console, login a realise you've forgotten what it was you where about to do. Saying that in such a case it's easier to point to some graphic, cause you don't have to think to much, Seems kinda lame
Problems with the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, speech is like a command line - it is largely modeless if it is done right. That's the big attraction; that's what most of the posters here are saying: They want to be surfing/gaming/whatever, and be able to say "computer, do this" so that they don't interrupt what they are doing. In short, they want to use speech as a low bandwidth auxillary channel. When I am in my car, I would love to be able to say to my MP3 player "Neo: play Rock-Boston-all" so that I can keep my eyes and most of my attention on the road . However, that is VASTLY different than putting most of my attention on a phone conversation whilst half-assed paying attention to the car I am tailgating.
Third, speech is a very low bandwidth output compared to other solutions: when I am typing, I have the bandwidth to change case, activate/deactivate bold (in a word processor - pity Mozilla cannot be instructed to insert a <b> on a ctrl-b) or whatever. Trying to do that with speech just wouldn't work because speech doesn't have the "out of band" channels of CTRL, SHIFT etc. Sure, you COULD try to use inflection or non-speech sounds, but then the processing gets to be even worse. (Although it would be fun to hear a Perl programmer speaking a program using Victor Borge's phonetic punctuation....)
In short, this article makes the same mistake most articles on user interaction make - it assumes there is some uber-interface, and all other interfaces are inferior. Wrong - speech where speech works, 2D where 2D works, 3D where 3D works, haptic where haptic works, etc. I wouldn't want to drive my car with a joystick, and I wouldn't want to code with a steering wheel.
Re:Problems with the article (Score:2)
It may be low bandwith but that does not mean it's not a powerful way of communicating. If I can say to my computer, "book me a flight to Miami for the weekend," it sure is a lot more powerful than going to Travelocity's or Yahoo' Travel's sites and make the travel arrangements on my own. That's the main difference between intelligent machines that truly understand natural languages and simple speech recognizers used for dictation and simple commands.
Playing with Voice Recognition (Score:3, Insightful)
This eventually got kind of annoying, and I pulled it off that system. I don't regret for a second playing with it. It taught me some valuable lessons about the arena of voice recognition.
1. I don't want to talk to my computer. You'd have to try this for a while to see for yourself, but the process is exhausting compared to just typing and clicking on stuff.
2. I never realized how much people tend to slur words used in context, but pronounce them properly by themselves. In the training session where this app learns your voice, I found that I say "Open File" differently when reading it than when I'm just saying it aloud.
3. Context is critical. For a person to determine the true meaning of words there's all kinds of voice inflection, and body language that needs to be read. I'm not sure I'd want to see a computer that smart!
Personally, I don't see a huge problem with the whole desktop metaphor interacting with a keyboard anyway. It may have a lot to do with those folks that honestly don't wish to use a computer, they just want a machine to think for them. I would think anyone who does tech support might appreciate what I mean here.
Bottom line, the only audio I want my computer to ever deal with is music playing in the background.
Re:Playing with Voice Recognition (Score:2)
1. I don't want to talk to my computer. You'd have to try this for a while to see for yourself, but the process is exhausting compared to just typing and clicking on stuff.
Mac Users have had voice recognition for years, too; I think OS 9 was the first, but X has it too. And I think most Mac Users would agree: every time it's updated, we go "oh, shiny!", use it for 2 weeks, and then never activate it again. It's not for lack of power or reliability: I can basically do anything with my voice that I could do with my mouse (although not with the keyboard) and it successfully recognizes my command about 80% of the time. You can even play the chess game bundled in OS X with it. However, it is tedious. And slow, even if it works at the speed of our spoken voice. And we all find this: I don't think you would walk into a Mac lab and all of a sudden hear Mac Users all speaking to their computer.
Now is when another Mac User will come on and say that *he uses it only*, etc, and there must be a reason that Apple continues to update it instead of let it drop. But I work with and support Mac Users, and nobody I know uses it, regularly.
Voice-operated pianos, computerphobic executives (Score:5, Insightful)
So why the "voice command" fantasy in the first place?
When the PC revolution was just starting to take off, most people had not learned to type in high school. Typing was considered a skill for secretaries, who, of course, were poorly paid, low in social rank, and referred to as "girls."
For many years, computer technology did not penetrate the higher corporate levels because directly handling machines was considered beneath the dignity of an executive. "I don't have time to learn to use that gear, I have people to do that for me," was the typical attitude. Execs would have their secretaries print out all their email for them, dictate replies, and have their secretaries keyboard them back in.
This changed when the young MBA's started arriving with their computer spreadsheets.
Most people, even wealthy people who can afford chauffeurs, drive their own cars, and most people now operate their own computers... Time to retire the whole "voice interface" concept, except for people with special needss.
HAL Exists, in 2 PII boxes (Score:2, Interesting)
why I'd like computers with voice recognition (Score:2)
Imagine walking down the street, and hearing everyone speaking in perfectly enunciated, grammatically flawless English.
Why Hal Will Never Exist (Score:2, Insightful)
"impossible" arguments bogus (Score:2)
I think a good audio interface will definitely beat text & graphics interfaces. Look at the history of news. Something like 2/3rds of the news is conveyed through TV and 1/3rd through print (and half the US public seems uninterested and ignorant anyways). The operational word is "good" interface. Humans have amazing verbal abilities that computers have barely touched. But they will ten of firty years from now. So it is just a matter of time.
Except for one problem (Score:2)
HAL was designed for use in a working environment.
David Bowman and Frank Poole had other things to worry about without also having to type and read text. The thing that comes first to my mind is the use of the EVA pods. Their hands are already on the controls, their eyes are on their work and the numerous other sources of visual information from within the pod itself, and you think that adding yet another button is going to be easier than "Open the pod bay doors, please?"
Speech Recognition (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of us here are fairly comfortable with a CLI, because we know the commands to use. However, we're in the vast minority.
We've already advanced past the CLI, past using command keywords towards using visually intuitive interfaces. Speech recognition would be even worse than going back to using CLIs as the primary interface, because I know most people can type rm ~/foo/blah.js faster than tey can speak it to a computer. Probably even more people can just drag the icon for the file to the trash can even faster.
However, where speech recognition can be useful is in dictation.
This is true... for now (Score:2)
voice recognition is better today but it is still horribly crappy. the computer cannot regulary distinguish human speech (espically english) or how we are contantly modifying our speech and commands.. a human understands that "I'm leaving now","See you later!", and "Set to away mode" to be the same thing. the computer doesnt, and cant understand you if you yell, have a cold, or the nise of the kids is higher then normal. until they can create a speech recognition engine that has the abilities of a human with an IQ of around 50 it will be useless.
speech response on the otherhand I use all the time. I prefer to be told the number of voice and email messages when I enter the house, to hear the over-speed alert from the car stereo, and to hear confirmation in a human-esque voice.
These unilateral statements... (Score:2)
Everyone knows that the interface we most desire would have BOTH visual and audio. The ability to analize an image and understand it and then describe it textually and to take a textual description and display it visually.
We want hands-free interaction in all it's forms.
I want a retinal implant or pair of glasses which can display information fed to me via a at the same time I am fed audio information through an earpiece/implant which I can sub-vocalize commands to. A compltely interactive interface which is non-obtrusive to my daily life.
Is that too much to ask?
Star Trek (Score:2, Insightful)
Think and Talk (Score:2)
Talk about how talking impairs thinking.
Phones, cars, etc. (Score:2)
Speech AND Vision (Score:2)
As part of my dissertation research [greatmindsworking.com], I am building a Java-based system called E.B.L.A. (experience-based language acquisition), which allows a computer to learn language based on experiences that are grounded in perception using a computer vision system.
Of course having experiences grounded only in visual perception is a limitation, but it is a start.
Text is the icon of meaning. (Score:2)
Anyhow, I thought I'd point out that this had already been concluded in other elements of academia --yep, that's what they do over there in the English dept. Hey, English is a programming language too after all. Look at Smalltalk if you don't believe it.
Anyhow, speech being the little brother of text doesn't necessarily mean that talking computers will never exist. I agree with those who say a combo plate is usually a good bargain. We need to look to the next level rather than battling one sense against another over what the best I/O channel is. I'm talking about total sensory immersion. Hal didn't have jack shit to offer the crew compared to the holodeck. I mean come on, playing chess and you had to move the pieces for him with your hand? That aint going to cut it for entertainment these days.
An Ode To An Impossible Future (Score:2)
The Silken Strains of your Status Report
And error messages, long and short
Cannot exist; we have no choice
But to point and click, to touch and stroke
Plasma Displays that explode under fire.
Or when tempest-tossed by space/time dire
Make extra low-rank bridge crew croak --
What cruelty! Oh proud Science, how could you
Leave the future so truncated, without
Considering an old trekkie's doubt
of limits to what we can do?
For if our starships don't even talk to us,
Could we ever discover warp-speed, thus?
There won't ever be linguistic input to IDEs (Score:2)
Your IDE "hears":
So, I figure that as one of them code-monkey sorts, I'm not gonna' figure on losing my keyboard anytime soon.
ps, the code was of course lifted from the "CREATORS ADMIT UNIX, C HOAX" joke text
Materialism can never Explain the World (Score:2)
For every attempt at an explanation must begin with the formation
of thoughts about the phenomena of the world.
Materialism thus begins with the thought of matter or material processes.
But, in doing so, it is already confronted by two different sets of facts:
the material world, and the thoughts about it.
The materialist seeks to make these latter intelligible by regarding
them as purely material processes. He believes that thinking takes place
in the brain, much in the same way that digestion takes place in the animal
organs.
Just as he attributes mechanical and organic effects to matter, so he
credits matter in certain circumstances with the capacity to think.
He overlooks that, in doing so, he is merely shifting the problem from
one place to another. He ascribes the power of thinking to matter
instead of to himself.
And thus he is back again at his starting point. How does matter come
to think about its own nature? Why is it not simply satisfied with
itself and content just to exist?
The materialist has turned his attention away from the definite subject,
his own I, and has arrived at an image of something quite vague and
indefinite. Here the old riddle meets him again.
The materialistic conception cannot solve the problem;
it can only shift it from one place to another.
(Rudolf Steiner, The Philosophy of Freedom, Chapter 2 [elib.com])
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA004/TPOF/pofc
Re:All great Sci-Fi ideas come to pass eventually (Score:5, Funny)
If brightly coloured spandex clothes ever become commonplace I'm quitting this planet...
Re:All great Sci-Fi ideas come to pass eventually (Score:3, Funny)
Man, you totally missed out on the 80's didn't you?
You are going the wrong way about this... (Score:2)
If I could have the body that goes with them... (Score:2)
If I could have the body that goes with them - movie-star appearance, no (or greatly slowed) aging (and reversion to prime-of-life apparent age), improved stamina, mind that stays sharp under stress, exhaustion, and injury, rapid healing (including from repeated beating-to-unconsciousness) - bring 'em on!
I won't even insist they be bulletproof and have anti-gravity, supercomputer w/comm, vacuum & radiation shielding, air recycling, and warp drive.
When you think about it... (Score:2, Interesting)
... HAL's most important human-to-computer information exchange (well, one-directional I guess) in the movie was a non-verbal one - where he read Frank and Dave's lips.
Re:When you think about it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:it's all the same.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:it's all the same.... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm. Photomesa... (Score:2)
You can see all of your directories in one big window. Click on a directory name, and the box 'zooms' in to show the other directories or pictures or files within it.
They have another image viewer that came with the package, or rather it is the same one, just a different way of looking at things. It tries to simulate a time tunnel. So you get a pseudo-3D spiral on your screen which you can 'zoom' into (like going down a tunnel). Your pictures will fly by you as you progress. Haven't played with that one much, but looks promising.
- A non-productive mind is with absolutely zero balance.
- AC
Re:Hmmm. Photomesa... (Score:2)
Are there any better ones out there
How about iPhoto? [apple.com]
for either Linux or Win32?
Oh, sorry.
Re:Hmmm. Photomesa... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm. Photomesa... (Score:2, Interesting)
Think in terms of the real world where you can inspect your intended target from a distance and decide what the best route is to get there. That can't happen in 2D w/o alot of cumbersome reference (ala CLI).
3D allows for XYZ movement and perspective enabling 4D decisions.
If you knew that you had a setup workspace to your left and a differently setup workspace to your right and again one above you and below and 10 units in front and back and then could alternate the forementioned space with any one of the points mentioned... spatial division in 3D, would you not be more productive than having to dig repeatedly in to a hole/plane?
Re:Hmmm. Photomesa... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm. Photomesa... (Score:2)
Like I said, I can't se any advantage at all to 3d user interfacs for common tasks such as browsing. I've done all my "gedankenexperiments" trying to think of a 3D paradigm that would have a significant advantage over 2D paradigms, and I really can't find any real advantages. Screenshots of what's there now don't show me anything worthwhile.
Aside from which, why would I get one of those overpriced underpowered non-commodity Mac thingies, when my PC thingy is so much faster with so much more hardware at such a smaller price?
As for these "movies" of which you speak...I have many. Hundreds of full-length and thousands of clips. That doesn't mean I'd throw away my still images--they're too yummy. Mmmm, now on to my Patricia Araujo folder...
Anyway, I see 3D file browsers as being all "cool factor" with no tangible advantages. It's possible to make one "as good as" 2D file browsers, but not at all superior to them. At least, as near as I can tell. There's a strong desire among many on
Re:Cluster F the Thing . . . (Score:2)
Whether his theories are valid is a completely different issue, though, and as many other posters here I think he's generalizing way to much, and that while visualisation may be the right way to go for interacting with complex models, I certainly don't want to be bothered with some fancy visual module to ask a home automation system to turn on the oven or other simple tasks.
Check the video clip (Score:2)
On the video clip, check out the calendar browsing. It is a new UI approach that overcomes the traditional obstacle; click on a day or an item, and it zooms open, but you still have the whole calendar on the screen, it just shrinks to accomodate. This is an improvement; traditional calendaring apps make you jump back and forth, when what you really wanted was to find an event, look at nearby days that are open, and reschedule it. Look at the stock analysis thing he was doing, too; it's about being able to select and find information intuitively without losing the big picture or its context.
What they are trying to do is find visual strategies for accessing information without hiding its context from view, and provide actions that correspond to helping us find and use information. Think about the above examples and compare to traditional file browsers. The "vfolders" thing in Evolution is a step in the right direction; people want to find information by context, which has more interconnections than a simple hierarchical structure.
Speech is very unlikely to provide the core of interface, though it may be important at certain steps: "This is a picture of my daughter. Find me other pictures of my daughter." That's the speech part of the interface; but the important part is that a visual display of the results should also show thumbnails of pictures *near* those of your daughter; that way, you remember the occasion or timeframe, and context, so when you see a group of pictures of her at a birthday party, you know they go together and you can focus on that group of pictures to find the one you *really* wanted. When combined with the right interface, it's clear that visual approaches are faster *and* more effective. How information gets in and out of the computer is trivial. I don't, however, want to have the computer say "I found 15 images of your daughter. Would you like me to show them to you?" Too slow, too much slow conscious thought.
Interstingly, the title bar in the video looked like windowmaker to me! There's no *inherent* reason that useful interfaces can't be developed on an alternative OS. Put their calendar tricks into Evolution, and people might start realizing that Windows is not the source of innovation!