There are comments saying they agree with the article, that it's like autocomplete - the opposite of what the article is arguing ("autocomplete is the wrong mental model")!
When I use autocomplete I know what I want it to complete. To mee also copilot seems like a different category.
Sorry about that -- I think the article presents a correct analysis of conversational computing but kind of oversells the novelty of copilot, by missing the ways older tech like autocomplete are also conversational. So it's less a change in quality than a change in quantity (that said, a change in quantity can produce a change in quality -- see [1]).
You might use autocomplete when you know what you want it to complete, but I also often find myself using it to look at the properties of an object, see what variables are in scope, "probe" the type of different variables, etc. -- all exploratory, all dialogues.
I didn't mean to agree. I disagree with the article.
As for the way you use autocomplete -- I would say it's not that uncommon for me to use autocomplete to "fish" for stuff when I'm not sure what I want. Especially if I'm working with something unfamiliar. I'll frequently just type the dot and then scroll through suggestions.
Comments
There are comments saying they agree with the article, that it's like autocomplete - the opposite of what the article is arguing ("autocomplete is the wrong mental model")!
When I use autocomplete I know what I want it to complete. To mee also copilot seems like a different category.
Sorry about that -- I think the article presents a correct analysis of conversational computing but kind of oversells the novelty of copilot, by missing the ways older tech like autocomplete are also conversational. So it's less a change in quality than a change in quantity (that said, a change in quantity can produce a change in quality -- see [1]).
You might use autocomplete when you know what you want it to complete, but I also often find myself using it to look at the properties of an object, see what variables are in scope, "probe" the type of different variables, etc. -- all exploratory, all dialogues.
[1] https://twitter.com/rsnous/status/1090858376471371776
I didn't mean to agree. I disagree with the article.
As for the way you use autocomplete -- I would say it's not that uncommon for me to use autocomplete to "fish" for stuff when I'm not sure what I want. Especially if I'm working with something unfamiliar. I'll frequently just type the dot and then scroll through suggestions.