Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

zerohedge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 181 posts

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#151

Post by shrimp_emoji »

chasd00 wrote: post #92
kneebonian wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was growing up there were 3 rules about the internet 1. Never believe anything you see, hear or read on the internet. 2. Never give out personal information of any kind. 3. Every girl that wanted to meet you on the internet was an FBI agent. It seems like almost every problem we've had with the internet comes from breaking one of those three rules. I wish/hope we could/can go back.

> 3. Every girl that wanted to meet you on the internet was an FBI agent. i can't remember who said it but there was a tagline for a while that went "The Internet, where the men are men, the women are men, and the teen girls are FBI agents".

It went: "The Internet: where the women are men, the men are boys, and the boys are FBI agents."

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#152

Post by breakpointalpha »

httpz wrote: post #73

I think we now have the technology to build the talking portraits we saw in Harry Potter. Voice, facial movements, dialogs that matches the character can all be generated by AI now. I'm just not sure if this can be done realtime yet to interact with another person. In the future, you may be able to have a conversation with a portrait of your parents even after they pass away. (So collect as much training data now?)

As weird as it sounds I had this exact thought.

I signed my parents up for Storyworth, which emails them once a week writing prompts about their life.

I'm still weighing the ethical implications of using the entire dataset 20 years from now to generate a facsimile.

Partly I just feel sad about the future, forever chasing digital ghosts of our past loved ones...

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#153

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

superfrank wrote: post #142
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a more local, trust-less internet like we had in the 90s and early 00s I don't recognize this description of the Internet from any time after 1985 onward.

"More local" may not be the perfect description. When I wrote it I was thinking of things like AIM where, for the most part, you knew everyone you were interacting with. The more I think about it, there were plenty of chatrooms and forums at that time though, so yeah, probably not a good word to use. I think "trust-less" is more what I'm getting at though. In the 90s and early 00s the whole, "don't reveal anything pe…

Having been online since about 1983, I never had this "trust-less" experience. I can understand what you're saying though, because by the time my kids started to be online in the 00s, I was generally trying to convey to them the same point that you're making.

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#154

Post by ZainRiz »

majormajor wrote: post #149
ZainRiz wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tools for a community to self-moderate is the key here, along with communities being able to define their own boundaries. Reddit communities with active moderators are often great places to have respectful conversations. Twitter, on the other extreme, has virtually zero moderation tools for any group. You get to live with whatever rules Twitter sets for the entire platform (and die by the group that's able to hac…

The biggest question for me right now is "can Reddit [or similar] survive hordes of generative AI spam/troll/abuse bots without changing to a paid membership model?" I don't know if the current tools are up to the task.

Good point. It doesn't necessarily have to be a paid membership, but it would need some type of reputation formation. Ability to pay money is one way to grant you a "prob not a bot" reputation.

There's many other ways to set reputation thought:

- I've seen private online communities where you need one or two members to "vouch" for you

- StackOverflow has it's own reputation model based on how helpful you've been in the past

- Bitcoin et-all use proof-of-work as a reputation model.

I'm sure there are many more just waiting to be discovered

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#155

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

z0r wrote: post #139
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a more local, trust-less internet like we had in the 90s and early 00s I don't recognize this description of the Internet from any time after 1985 onward.

This might just be a way of aging ourselves. I do feel that Facebook blatantly flipped the norm that you used a pseudonym and kept personal information private when communicating (much less publishing) online - that's the norm I grew up with in the 90s and even the early 00s.

Back on usenet in the 80s and 90s, your ID was essentially your email address (but likely using bang path notation). There no pseudonyms, and everyone was a real person with identifiable features and a real world location.

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#156

Post by blueridge »

superfrank wrote: post #62
NalNezumi wrote: post #18

Personally I love this new AI voice content booms. My favorite is the AI presidents discussing/playing/rating stuff [1], Attenborough narrating warhammer [2]. While slightly silly, I think in future people might start to take internet way less serious when you can literally make things up. Which I think is a good trend. People getting depressed or so consumed by the internet culture that they loose all interest in th…

> I think in future people might start to take internet way less serious when you can literally make things up I've been starting to think this way as well. It feels like we're seeing something similar to the way that mass spam calls drastically changed the way people use the phones to the point where people don't recognize a phone number, they just don't pick up anymore. As the ratio of garbage goes up, people will…

Time to restart the private book club.

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#157

Post by muyuu »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #70
Zealotux wrote: post #2

Here's the "podcast": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meu0CoYv3z8 , incredible.

It mimics everything incredibly well, except for curiosity ("?") and soul ("!"). Very much like print, soulless speech patterns persist through the entire interview, as if they were reading a screenplay. The hesitations and pauses are still there, but not the soul. So either AI translates English punctuation poorly, or they weren't picked-up enough times to mimic themselves into this interview. Example: "Abolutely, J…

it was actually pretty good at adding some emotion here and there

i wonder if they have some extra input/coding to mark for inflections, etc

maybe they just tried a bunch of times and picked the best fit for the context

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#158

Post by majormajor »

ZainRiz wrote: post #154
majormajor wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest question for me right now is "can Reddit [or similar] survive hordes of generative AI spam/troll/abuse bots without changing to a paid membership model?" I don't know if the current tools are up to the task.

Good point. It doesn't necessarily have to be a paid membership, but it would need some type of reputation formation. Ability to pay money is one way to grant you a "prob not a bot" reputation. There's many other ways to set reputation thought: - I've seen private online communities where you need one or two members to "vouch" for you - StackOverflow has it's own reputation model based on how helpful you've been in t…

I think generative AI is a game changer here. The more easily people can be fooled into thinking the bot is alive and sentient, the more easy it is to scale reputation-gathering.

StackOverflow and such are probably fine since they are generally "testable" answers.

Otherwise, we've already seen marketers figure out how to deal with reputation - "influencer marketing" is far higher-reputation, in terms of whether or not people want to interact with the marketing/marketers, than email spam was a decade ago. So imagine a forum about Toyotas. Have a bunch of mostly-chatbot-powered members hang out for a while, talking about how they like Toyotas, each with distinct voices and personalities and hobbies and (AI-generated) photos of their cars in different parts of the country... then over the next year, they slowly all start realizing that man, that new Honda is making them rethink their Toyota fandom!

You could do this today without generative AI - and people do, especially for things with huge marketing budgets like political campaigns! - but it's gonna be a LOT cheaper very soon. So it'll happen a lot more.

Vouching would certainly slow things down, but if someone is managing a fleet of 50 GPT bots, once they convince 2 real people to let the first ones in, they can start bringing their others in on their own.

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#159

Post by superfrank »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #153
superfrank wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"More local" may not be the perfect description. When I wrote it I was thinking of things like AIM where, for the most part, you knew everyone you were interacting with. The more I think about it, there were plenty of chatrooms and forums at that time though, so yeah, probably not a good word to use. I think "trust-less" is more what I'm getting at though. In the 90s and early 00s the whole, "don't reveal anything pe…

Having been online since about 1983, I never had this "trust-less" experience. I can understand what you're saying though, because by the time my kids started to be online in the 00s, I was generally trying to convey to them the same point that you're making.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I've had many conversations with many people my age (mid 30s) about how we went from "don't post anything about yourself" to "post your entire life online" around when Facebook got big, so I don't think it's something that only I experienced. There's another commenter on this post saying something similar and I remember being taught about "internet safety" in middle school, so maybe it's a generational thing.

Re: Joe Rogan Issues Warning After AI-Generated Version of His Podcast Surfaces

#160

Post by greenie_beans »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #85
greenie_beans wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

boomer parents told this to their millennial children. then the boomers started believing everything they read on facebook despite the millennial warnings. now everybody needs a warning not to believe what they read on the AI.

The suicide cults of the '90s say otherwise and have a lot in common with the ivermectin overdoses following people old enough to know better doing stupid stuff they read about on the internet.

i mean sure if you want to split hairs over that, but "kids, don't believe what you read on the internet" is like a meme for a millennial who grew up with the internet.
Post reply on HN