Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We really need to stop expecting so much from speech in technology. It simply isn't a great input method. It's loud, it lacks privacy, and for short commands it takes way too long.

I think a lot of people are counting on speech to bring us into a sort of Star Trek future.

The real game changer for input is along the lines of what the neural lace is supposed to be. Cognitive input. Silent, fast, efficient. In many cases once the technology is mature people won't even have to internally verbalize commands. Just look at a light and desire it to be dimmer.. it dims. "typing" at the speed of internalized though will also be amazing.

Every time I hear someone (including myself) tripping over "OK Google" I cringe.



> It simply isn't a great input method

Loud is relative, privacy is an aimless indictment that's orthogonal, and for brevity?

Speech is a fantastic tool for communication, which includes input and output. It's part of why most large animals, for which quick communication is imperative, use it. It's imprecise, which is the problem that machines are not good at dealing with. It's was a good direction, when we used to have machines that were initially trained with speech for better accuracy, but now passive listening of devices isn't even used for that!

> The real game changer for input is along the lines of what the neural lace is supposed to be. Cognitive input. Silent, fast, efficient.

Silent sure. The human mind is rather random, highly variable between individuals and ages. I would not call it fast or efficient. Then again, speech to text is contextual cognitive input. Without drugs or intentional damage (minor) to the brain, I don't expect neural implants to be very effective, even in the next 100 years.


And then you have thought pop in to your head to send your manager an email calling them a fuckhead so your phone makes it happen.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: