4 ms·

This is some insane catastrophizing. The value is that it turns it into a form factor that may be easier to consume, pay attention to, etc.

mdp2021 2y ago
Since when industrial snacks are healthy food?
- sodality2 2y ago
  Conversational audio form is really not an "industrial snack". If I had the chance to listen to podcasts about any topic, I would do so much more often - uploading PDFs of academic papers, manpages, etc.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    Yes, but should not you wait for the generated content - the text - to be at proper level? We have "Francis Fukuyama vs John Grey" available... If the purpose is serious, of information access management, why did they elect the form of a pisstake ("like")?
    - sodality2 2y ago
      I personally appreciate the lighter introduction/discussion into a topic. That may be all it's good for, and that's okay. I'm not replacing my reading with this any time soon, precisely because of the problems you mention.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  This probably isn't really a good analogy. It's just a fact that for most people, a conversation is more engaging than an academic paper. It's easier to pay attention to it, and it's easier to retain the information in it. This might be healthy food that tastes like a snack.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > a conversation is more engaging than an academic paper I certainly agree with you, but it has to be quality conversation. The example provided could suggest "think at what we could achieve" in an outcome that shows "and that is what could possibly go wrong".
- ben_w 2y ago
  Indeed. But MREs, protein shakes, Huel etc. are also a product of industrialisation. In this case, I could see potential value for a better iteration of this tech, making it a meal replacement shake rather than a candy bar. There's too much interesting content for me to read it all, and I have a long commute. Right now I'm using that commute to learn German, and that is a good use of that time, but let's say I didn't need to because I hadn't moved country or I was already fluent: in this hypothetical, I'd gladly have a better AI than this(!) generate podcasts about the articles that I don't have time to read. But the AI would need to be better than this one for that to be worthwhile — I just popped one of my own blog posts into it, and it was kinda OK-ish, but did make some stuff up. Now sure, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect was written with humans in mind, but that's a shared disappointment and not a reason to let this AI off that particular hook.
- 1-6 2y ago
  When I last checked, even healthy foodies occasionally enjoy shelf-stable snacks.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    So let us say you could have effortful (as opposed to buttery-bread "no need to chew"), nutrient, and appetizing: if the snack is effortless (but for the bad spice) but with a hint of possibly no nutrients (when not possibly unhealthy), and tastes the-bad-way weird ("...like, OMG - I hmmmm was, like..."), where is the appetizing part? If the "conversational form" (very good idea per se) has an implementation which would flow easily if not for the disturbing speech quirks, with doubts about the content quality: where can the interest be?
redleggedfrog 2y ago
... insane catastrophizing." Nice unique phrase. Guessing you're not a LLM. ;^) The thing that is being offered is of no interested to me, as are almost any AI generated content. I'm a human, and am interested in what humans do and say and think. AI content offends my sensibilities at every level. I dismiss it without even thinking twice. So all those people who do podcast, music, art, whatever, with AI, well, you lost me folks. I pay a lot of money for the things I like. AI ain't getting any of it, not out of spite (can't spite an AI, they're not human!) but on principle.
- sodality2 2y ago
  That's fine. To say you don't like something is fine. To say something holds no value is a stronger claim.
  - redleggedfrog 2y ago
    I'd go even further than "hold no value" and say it's actively detrimental on both the individual and society. We already have an avalanche of dehumanizing technology that isolates and placates us. We see the results of this with problems in mental health and socialization. This is a downward spiral as AI content will likely appeal to those who lack social skills as they don't have to cope with tricky vagaries of other humans - which is part of which makes us human and gives us social growth.
    - sodality2 2y ago
      Even more catastrophizing. Do you get upset when you read the abstract from an academic paper? Or when you listen to a real podcast that does summarize a difficult topic in easier/shallower terms? Is it the fact that an AI summarized it the problem? Can you point to a real harm here, or will you just hand-wave, instead of seeing the reality of making information more available being a net positive?
      - EGreg 2y ago
        Here is what AI can do thus far: 1) humans produced a lot of content in good faith on the internet 2) the AI was trained on it and as a result produced a non-von-Neumann architecture that no one really understands, but which can reason about many things 3) even simply remixing the intelligible and artistic output of millions of humans in lots of nonlinear ways, directed by natural language, leads to amazing possibilities that obviate the need for humans to train anymore because by the time they do, it will all be commoditized. 4) doing it at scale means it can be personalized (also create unlimited amounts of fraudulent yet believable art / news / claims etc.) to spam the internet with fake information for short-term goals, some for LULz, others profit or control etc. 5) targeting certain goals, like reputation destruction of specific people or groups, seems like low hanging fruit and will probably proliferate in the next couple years, with no way to stop it 6) astroturfing all kinds of movements, with fake participants, is also a pretty easy goal with huge incentives — expect websites where 95% of the content and participants are fake trying to attract VC money or sell tokens, etc. 7) but ultimately, the real game changer is commoditizing everything you consider to be uniquely human and meaningful, including jokes, even eventually sex and intimacy. Visuals for heterosexual men, audio for heterosexual women (this is before the sexbots and emotionbots that learn everyone’s micro-preferences better than they know themselves, and can manipulate people at scale into being motivated to do all kinds of things and gently peer-pressure those who might resist). 8) For a few years they will console themselves with platitudes like “the AIs arent meant to replace, but enhance, centaurs of human + computer are better than a computer alone” until human in the loop will clearly be a liability and people will give up… the platitudes will become famous as epitomizing optimistic delusions as humans replaced themselves Would probably be used for busy parents to rsise their kids at first, in a “set and and forget it” way, educating them etc. But eventually will be weaponized by corporations or whoever trains the models, to nudge everyone towards various things. Even without AI, the software improves all the time through teams of humans sending autatic updates over-the-air. It can replace a few things you do… gradually then all at once. Driving. Teaching. Entertainment. Intimacy. And so on. I think the most benign end-game is humans have built a zoo for themselves… everyone is disconnected from everyone by like 100 AIs, and can no longer change anything. The AIs are sort of herding or shepherding the humans into better lifestyles, and every need is satisfied by the AIs who know the micro-preferences of the humans and kids and pets etc. But it will be too tempting for the corporations to put backdoors to coordinate things at scale, once humans rely on their AIs rather than other humans, a bit like in the movie “Eagle Eye”. But much more subtle. At that point most anything is possible.
pjc50 2y ago
Turns what into an easy form factor? Some of this appears to be auto-summarization + read aloud, but the underlying question of "is there anything here at all" is worth asking.
- sodality2 2y ago
  Any content you upload. PDFs, text, etc. Academic papers was one example I thought of (and have used).
- EGreg 2y ago
  Welcome to all entertainment Why consume entertainment? It’s just a time waster, right? Well that’s how the news is often consumed. Through some sort of “morning joe” podcast

mdp2021 2y ago

Since when industrial snacks are healthy food?

sodality2 2y ago
Conversational audio form is really not an "industrial snack". If I had the chance to listen to podcasts about any topic, I would do so much more often - uploading PDFs of academic papers, manpages, etc.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  Yes, but should not you wait for the generated content - the text - to be at proper level? We have "Francis Fukuyama vs John Grey" available... If the purpose is serious, of information access management, why did they elect the form of a pisstake ("like")?
  - sodality2 2y ago
    I personally appreciate the lighter introduction/discussion into a topic. That may be all it's good for, and that's okay. I'm not replacing my reading with this any time soon, precisely because of the problems you mention.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
This probably isn't really a good analogy. It's just a fact that for most people, a conversation is more engaging than an academic paper. It's easier to pay attention to it, and it's easier to retain the information in it. This might be healthy food that tastes like a snack.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > a conversation is more engaging than an academic paper I certainly agree with you, but it has to be quality conversation. The example provided could suggest "think at what we could achieve" in an outcome that shows "and that is what could possibly go wrong".
ben_w 2y ago
Indeed. But MREs, protein shakes, Huel etc. are also a product of industrialisation. In this case, I could see potential value for a better iteration of this tech, making it a meal replacement shake rather than a candy bar. There's too much interesting content for me to read it all, and I have a long commute. Right now I'm using that commute to learn German, and that is a good use of that time, but let's say I didn't need to because I hadn't moved country or I was already fluent: in this hypothetical, I'd gladly have a better AI than this(!) generate podcasts about the articles that I don't have time to read. But the AI would need to be better than this one for that to be worthwhile — I just popped one of my own blog posts into it, and it was kinda OK-ish, but did make some stuff up. Now sure, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect was written with humans in mind, but that's a shared disappointment and not a reason to let this AI off that particular hook.
1-6 2y ago
When I last checked, even healthy foodies occasionally enjoy shelf-stable snacks.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  So let us say you could have effortful (as opposed to buttery-bread "no need to chew"), nutrient, and appetizing: if the snack is effortless (but for the bad spice) but with a hint of possibly no nutrients (when not possibly unhealthy), and tastes the-bad-way weird ("...like, OMG - I hmmmm was, like..."), where is the appetizing part? If the "conversational form" (very good idea per se) has an implementation which would flow easily if not for the disturbing speech quirks, with doubts about the content quality: where can the interest be?

redleggedfrog 2y ago

... insane catastrophizing." Nice unique phrase. Guessing you're not a LLM. ;^) The thing that is being offered is of no interested to me, as are almost any AI generated content. I'm a human, and am interested in what humans do and say and think. AI content offends my sensibilities at every level. I dismiss it without even thinking twice. So all those people who do podcast, music, art, whatever, with AI, well, you lost me folks. I pay a lot of money for the things I like. AI ain't getting any of it, not out of spite (can't spite an AI, they're not human!) but on principle.

sodality2 2y ago
That's fine. To say you don't like something is fine. To say something holds no value is a stronger claim.
- redleggedfrog 2y ago
  I'd go even further than "hold no value" and say it's actively detrimental on both the individual and society. We already have an avalanche of dehumanizing technology that isolates and placates us. We see the results of this with problems in mental health and socialization. This is a downward spiral as AI content will likely appeal to those who lack social skills as they don't have to cope with tricky vagaries of other humans - which is part of which makes us human and gives us social growth.
  - sodality2 2y ago
    Even more catastrophizing. Do you get upset when you read the abstract from an academic paper? Or when you listen to a real podcast that does summarize a difficult topic in easier/shallower terms? Is it the fact that an AI summarized it the problem? Can you point to a real harm here, or will you just hand-wave, instead of seeing the reality of making information more available being a net positive?
    - EGreg 2y ago
      Here is what AI can do thus far: 1) humans produced a lot of content in good faith on the internet 2) the AI was trained on it and as a result produced a non-von-Neumann architecture that no one really understands, but which can reason about many things 3) even simply remixing the intelligible and artistic output of millions of humans in lots of nonlinear ways, directed by natural language, leads to amazing possibilities that obviate the need for humans to train anymore because by the time they do, it will all be commoditized. 4) doing it at scale means it can be personalized (also create unlimited amounts of fraudulent yet believable art / news / claims etc.) to spam the internet with fake information for short-term goals, some for LULz, others profit or control etc. 5) targeting certain goals, like reputation destruction of specific people or groups, seems like low hanging fruit and will probably proliferate in the next couple years, with no way to stop it 6) astroturfing all kinds of movements, with fake participants, is also a pretty easy goal with huge incentives — expect websites where 95% of the content and participants are fake trying to attract VC money or sell tokens, etc. 7) but ultimately, the real game changer is commoditizing everything you consider to be uniquely human and meaningful, including jokes, even eventually sex and intimacy. Visuals for heterosexual men, audio for heterosexual women (this is before the sexbots and emotionbots that learn everyone’s micro-preferences better than they know themselves, and can manipulate people at scale into being motivated to do all kinds of things and gently peer-pressure those who might resist). 8) For a few years they will console themselves with platitudes like “the AIs arent meant to replace, but enhance, centaurs of human + computer are better than a computer alone” until human in the loop will clearly be a liability and people will give up… the platitudes will become famous as epitomizing optimistic delusions as humans replaced themselves Would probably be used for busy parents to rsise their kids at first, in a “set and and forget it” way, educating them etc. But eventually will be weaponized by corporations or whoever trains the models, to nudge everyone towards various things. Even without AI, the software improves all the time through teams of humans sending autatic updates over-the-air. It can replace a few things you do… gradually then all at once. Driving. Teaching. Entertainment. Intimacy. And so on. I think the most benign end-game is humans have built a zoo for themselves… everyone is disconnected from everyone by like 100 AIs, and can no longer change anything. The AIs are sort of herding or shepherding the humans into better lifestyles, and every need is satisfied by the AIs who know the micro-preferences of the humans and kids and pets etc. But it will be too tempting for the corporations to put backdoors to coordinate things at scale, once humans rely on their AIs rather than other humans, a bit like in the movie “Eagle Eye”. But much more subtle. At that point most anything is possible.

pjc50 2y ago

Turns what into an easy form factor? Some of this appears to be auto-summarization + read aloud, but the underlying question of "is there anything here at all" is worth asking.

sodality2 2y ago
Any content you upload. PDFs, text, etc. Academic papers was one example I thought of (and have used).
EGreg 2y ago
Welcome to all entertainment Why consume entertainment? It’s just a time waster, right? Well that’s how the news is often consumed. Through some sort of “morning joe” podcast