The blog post argues that ChatGPT's autocomplete feature, while technically impressive, hinders user experience by preemptively finishing sentences and limiting user control. This creates several problems: it interrupts thought processes, discourages exploration of alternative phrasing, and can lead to inaccurate or unintended outputs. The author contends that true user control requires the ability to deliberately choose when and how suggestions are provided, rather than having them constantly injected. Ultimately, the post suggests that while autocomplete may be suitable for certain tasks like coding, its current implementation in conversational AI detracts from a natural and productive user experience.
The blog post "Is ChatGPT autocomplete bad UX/UI?" by Honza Brázdil delves into the potential drawbacks of the autocomplete feature commonly found in conversational AI interfaces, using ChatGPT as a primary example. Brázdil argues that while the seemingly helpful nature of autocomplete, which predicts and suggests the end of a user's sentence or query, can expedite interactions and reduce typing effort, it also introduces several potentially detrimental effects on the user experience and interface design.
He posits that autocomplete, in its eagerness to complete the user's thought, can inadvertently steer the conversation down a specific path, limiting the user's exploration of alternative phrasing or ideas. This "preemptive completion" can restrict the user's freedom of expression and potentially lead to less nuanced or less precise queries. The author illustrates this with scenarios where the autocomplete suggests a common or predictable continuation, effectively discouraging the user from formulating a more specific or complex question they might have otherwise posed. This can result in a sort of conversational "tunnel vision," where the user is subtly guided towards predictable outcomes, hindering the discovery of potentially more relevant information or solutions.
Furthermore, Brázdil contends that autocomplete can create a sense of artificial conversational flow. The seemingly rapid-fire back-and-forth exchange fostered by autocomplete can give a false impression of understanding and responsiveness, masking the underlying complexities and limitations of the AI model. This can lead users to overestimate the system's capabilities and potentially misinterpret its responses.
The author also touches upon the issue of user agency and control. By anticipating and completing the user's input, autocomplete can subtly diminish the user's sense of ownership over the conversation. This can be particularly problematic when the suggested completion is inaccurate or misrepresents the user's intended meaning. The feeling of having one's thoughts prematurely finalized by the system can be jarring and contribute to a less satisfying user experience.
In conclusion, while acknowledging the potential time-saving benefits of autocomplete, Brázdil's analysis suggests that its implementation in conversational AI interfaces requires careful consideration. The potential negative consequences on user agency, conversational breadth, and the perception of AI capabilities necessitate a nuanced approach to design and implementation, balancing efficiency with the preservation of genuine user interaction and control. He implies that further research and experimentation are needed to refine autocomplete functionalities and mitigate these potential pitfalls to ensure a more user-centric and truly helpful conversational experience.
Summary of Comments ( 45 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43076418
HN users largely agree with the author's criticism of ChatGPT's autocomplete. Many find the aggressive and premature nature of the suggestions disruptive to their thought process and writing flow. Several commenters compare it unfavorably to more passive autocomplete systems, particularly those found in code editors, which offer suggestions without forcing them upon the user. Some propose solutions, such as a toggle to disable the feature, adjustable aggressiveness settings, or a delay before suggestions appear. Others note the potential usefulness in specific contexts like collaborative writing or brainstorming, but generally agree it needs refinement. A few users suggest the aggressiveness might be a deliberate design choice to showcase ChatGPT's capabilities, even if detrimental to the user experience.
The Hacker News post "Is ChatGPT autocomplete bad UX/UI?" generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters offering varying perspectives on the usability of ChatGPT's autocomplete feature.
Several commenters agreed with the author of the linked article, finding the autocomplete suggestions disruptive and unhelpful. They described the experience as feeling rushed and distracting, particularly when trying to formulate complex thoughts. One commenter specifically mentioned the difficulty of editing within the already-populated text box, expressing frustration with having to constantly backspace or delete suggested words that weren't desired. Another commenter echoed this sentiment, emphasizing how the autocomplete frequently inserts incorrect or unwanted phrasing, disrupting their flow of thought. The intrusive nature of the autocomplete was a recurring theme, with users expressing a desire for more control over when and how suggestions are presented.
However, some commenters offered counterpoints, arguing that the autocomplete can be beneficial in certain scenarios. One user suggested that it could be helpful for brainstorming or overcoming writer's block, providing a starting point or prompting new ideas. Another pointed out that the feature might be particularly useful for non-native English speakers or those less proficient with written communication, offering assistance with grammar and vocabulary.
A few commenters discussed the potential technical reasons behind the aggressive autocomplete behavior, speculating that it might be a consequence of the underlying language model's architecture or a deliberate design choice to showcase the system's capabilities. One user suggested that the autocomplete might be trained on conversational data, leading to a more informal and interruptive style of suggestion.
Several comments focused on potential improvements to the user interface. Suggestions included allowing users to disable the autocomplete entirely, providing more granular control over the types of suggestions offered, or implementing a less intrusive visual presentation of the suggestions. One commenter specifically suggested a "greyed-out" approach, where suggestions appear as faded text that can be easily overwritten, rather than fully formed words that require explicit deletion.
The discussion also touched on broader UX principles, with some commenters arguing that autocomplete features should generally be less assertive and more respectful of the user's intent. The idea of user agency and control over the writing process was a key theme, with many commenters emphasizing the importance of allowing users to dictate the pace and style of their input.