Am I the only person who thought that predictable computer APIs that were testable and completely consistent were a massive improvement over using people for those tasks?

People seem to be taking it as a given that I'd want to have a conversation with a human every time I made a bank transfer or scheduled an appointment. Nothing could be further from the truth; I want my bank/calendar/terminal/alarm/television/etc to be less human.

Yes, there are human tasks here that ChatGPT might be a good fit for and where fuzzy context is important, and there's a ton of potential in those fuzzy areas. But many other tasks people are bringing up are in areas where ChatGPT isn't competing with human beings. Its competing with interfaces that are already far better than human beings would be, and the standards to replace those interfaces are far higher than being "as good as a human would be."

But as far as I can tell, the link is to plugins, Expedia is listed as an example. So it seems they're talking about making ChatGPT itself (using extra prompts) be a company's chatbot that directly does things like make reservations from users instructions. That's what I was commenting on and that, I'd guess could a new and more dangerous kind of problem.