4 ms·
I think it's a shame that a 146 minute podcast released ~55 minutes ago has so much discussion. Everybody here is clearly just reacting to the title with their
by sosodev 1y ago
I think it's a shame that a 146 minute podcast released ~55 minutes ago has so much discussion. Everybody here is clearly just reacting to the title with their own biases.
I know it's against the guidelines to discuss the state of a thread, but I really wish we could have thoughtful conversations about the content of links instead of title reactions.
- jasonthorsness 1y agoThis one does have the full transcript underneath (wonderful feature). But it's a long read too so I think your assumption is correct :P.
- mpalmer 1y agoBe fair; plenty of people transcribe and read podcasts, and/or summarize/excerpt them.
- j45 1y agoSummaries are great, but can be surface. The brain processes and has insights differently experiencing it at conversation speed. We might get what the conversation was that others had, but it can miss the mark for the listening and inner processing that leads to it's own gifts. It's not about one or the other for me, usually both.
- yoz-y 1y agoThe idea that people would do this has never even crossed my mind. Not disputing that people do this, mind you. Technology is certainly there, but I also think that it’s very prone to taking ideas out of context.
- tauchunfall 1y agothere is a transcript, people can skim for interesting parts and read for 30 minutes and then comment. edit: typo fix.
- markbao 1y agoJust as the core idea of a book can be (lossily) summarized in a few sentences, the core crux of an argument can be quite simple and not require wading though the whole discussion (the AGI discussion is only 30 minutes anyhow). Granted, a bunch of commenters are probably doing what you’re saying.
- jlhawn 1y agogotta listen at 2x speed!
- therealmarv 1y agoa very human reaction ;)
- Yossarrian22 1y agoMaybe they used AI to transcribe and summarize the podcast
- meowface 1y agoEh, Dwarkesh has to market the podcasts somehow. I think it's fine for him to use hooks like this and for HN threads to respond to the hooks. 99% of HN threads only ever reply to the headline and that's not changing anytime soon. This will likely cause many people (including myself) to watch the full podcast when we otherwise might not have. The criticism that people are only replying to a tiny portion of the argument is still valid, but sometimes it's more fun to have an open-ended discussion rather than address what's in the actual article/video.
- fragmede 1y agoWho listens to podcasts at 1x speed? That's unbearably slow!
- tootie 1y agoIdk how this Dwarkesh Patel got so popular so fast. I'd never heard of him and he keeps popping up in my feeds.
- dang 1y agoIt takes time for more reflective comments to appear, because reflection is a slower mental operation. Reflexive responses are much faster and tend to be generic and shallow. (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=reflective%20reflex%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) I believe this distinction is pretty fundamental to humans, so we're not likely to escape it, but the good news is that reflective comments do show up eventually if the article is substantive and the reflexive ones haven't ruined the thread. We also try to downweight the more reflexive subthreads. More at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45625084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45625084.
- sosodev 1y agoThank you. Reflexive vs reflective is a good way to frame it. You're right that the reflective comments do show up eventually so I suppose I need to be more patient too.