I think for the first time in the history, user intent isn’t inferred from click-streams but spoken straight to the product in natural language. From this perspective one thing I’ve noticed is how older users take to AI: they value the infinite patience repeat an answer, go slower, clarify as many times as needed. Younger users are the opposite: short attention, zero tolerance for friction, and they often underspecify what they want, so the AI “fails” them faster.
That’s also why I love the way you have built Jules: begin with intent-clarity, map a plan, then generate. It feels like you’re teaching the user and the model to slow down just enough to get something valuable.
How do you see today’s kids adapting AI experiences? Will the impatience curve keep steepening, or will new patterns pull them in?
Really enjoyed this, Kathy thanks for sharing!
I think for the first time in the history, user intent isn’t inferred from click-streams but spoken straight to the product in natural language. From this perspective one thing I’ve noticed is how older users take to AI: they value the infinite patience repeat an answer, go slower, clarify as many times as needed. Younger users are the opposite: short attention, zero tolerance for friction, and they often underspecify what they want, so the AI “fails” them faster.
That’s also why I love the way you have built Jules: begin with intent-clarity, map a plan, then generate. It feels like you’re teaching the user and the model to slow down just enough to get something valuable.
How do you see today’s kids adapting AI experiences? Will the impatience curve keep steepening, or will new patterns pull them in?