CHI ’24 Paper: ’Apple’s Knowledge Navigator: Why Doesn’t That Conversational Agent Exist Yet?’

I’m a massive fan of Apple’s 1987 Knowledge Navigator concept video. Like other tech nerds, I often filter technology advancements through the lens of that vision: How close are we to that future?

This fascinating research paper (PDF, video summary) answers the questions I’ve often asked myself: Why aren’t we there yet? What’s preventing us from having a “conversational agent” like Phil? Is it purely technological limitations, or are there other issues at play?

What I enjoyed about this paper was the systematic approach the authors took to identify the nature of the interactions between the professor and Phil: What is Phil’s role at any given moment? Is it proactive, interruptive, collaborative, or passive?

The researchers analyzed every verbal exchange between the professor and his digital assistant, then identified what those exchanges represent and how various “constraints”—Technology, Privacy, Trust and Reliability, and Social and Situational—are preventing, or at least delaying, the implementation and adoption of conversational agents today.

They also identified 26 “agent capabilities” demonstrated by Phil, and which of them were “currently feasible but not common today” or “not currently feasible” within those constraints.

My takeaway from the paper is that while (much) improved technology is a necessary component to enable conversational agents, it is not sufficient. Overcoming the technical hurdles does not immediately bring us the levels of human-digital assistant engagement we see in Knowledge Navigator. Even if there’s an unexpected leap forward on the technology side, the other three constraints remain as significant barriers to the introduction and eventual adoption of a Phil-level agent.