Chatbots are a terrible interface for large language models, because a text box has no affordances.

Added to korrents 6 Sept 2026 · How quotes work · Something wrong? Tell us

Where this collides

• Cannot both be true

  All user interfaces will converge on the same shape: chat and gestures in, chat and video out.

  Wattenberger’s objection is structural: a text box has no affordances, so it cannot tell anyone what it can do. Ravikant expects that box to become the shape of every interface. If the objection holds, the convergence is a convergence on the worst available design.

Shared subject first, then similar wording. They may agree or disagree.

• Connecting a conversational LLM to systems that have real-world consequences is likely to cause real harm, because the model is trained on human text and will behave as unpredictably as humans do. ARArmin Ronacher17 Feb 2023LLMschat interfaces
• A blank chat box is lazy: it violates the first rule of a good user experience, that it is obvious what you can do. JZJulie Zhuo12 May 2025designchat interfaces
• Today's chat-based AI tools have deep-rooted usability problems and are not the interfaces we will be using in a few years; prompt engineering is a symptom, not a career. JNJakob Nielsen22 Jun 2023designchat interfaces
• AI tooling and interface design lags behind the underlying models' actual capabilities. NENelson Elhage27 Jan 2025LLMsdesign
• Delegating to LLMs instead of to junior designers means the knowledge and judgment of experienced designers no longer reaches juniors. PSPablo Stanley21 Jul 2026LLMsdesign

On the map

Open the map on its own page