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

NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 148 posts

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#101

Post by jsnell »

888666 wrote: post #97
endisneigh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I mentioned, don’t use google products then. What’s the value of spamming this all of the time? The validity of the concern isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that it’s irrelevant to the content being posted.

To warn users so they're aware that the lifespan of the product they're using may be very short, and therefore they may lose something they put a lot of investment in. It's empathy.

Nobody reading HN needs to be made aware of it, and those are the only people you'll be able to reach with a HN comment.

The thing is, these repetitive comments get spammed dozens of times on every Google-related post. They could be posted without reading the submission. Many of them probably are in fact probably posted just based on the title (seeing how many people posted basically exactly the same comments into a submission today that wasn't even about a product). These comments completely crowd out any other discussion just due to sheer volume.

There's 90 comments on this thread at the moment. Maybe like 5 are discussing anything about the article itself. The rest are just totally predictable and generic comments, which is something the comment guidelines specifically ask to avoid. (And yes, I'm now also participating in that.)

Now, fair enough. Maybe there really is nothing to be said about the concept of the product. There's definitely not much to be said yet about the execution given nobody here will have been able to use it, so that definitely limits the scope of meaningful discussion to be had. But since the spam won out, we'll never find out.

If there's nothing of substance to talk about, we could just talk about nothing and let the obviously boring and uninteresting submission die in silence.

And if you need to warn your family and friends not to use this product because you think it will be cancelled too soon, you'll probably reach them more effectively via methods other than HN.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#102

Post by carlossouza »

bg24 wrote: post #100

“ A key difference between NotebookLM and traditional AI chatbots is that NotebookLM lets you “ground” the language model in your notes and sources. Source-grounding effectively creates a personalized AI that’s versed in the information relevant to you. Starting today, you can ground NotebookLM in specific Google Docs that you choose, and we’ll be adding additional formats soon.” While it sounds promising, the blog p…

Imagine you are a screenwriter, and you are writing a fiction script, reimagining events in the past (e.g. Inglorious Bastards)..

I wonder what this product would answer when asked how the WW2 ended.

How would this source-grounding mechanism work? Would it answer based on the truth/facts or on the source provided by the author?

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#103

Post by noduerme »

pphysch wrote: post #69

Google Docs has been going strong for almost 2 decades, longer than the iPhone. NotebookLM is another way to read your Google Docs, with LLM assistance. If NotebookLM gets killed off, you still have your Google Docs and can read them with your eyeballs or some other LLM. HN loves to shit on Google for their loose trail-and-error approach to product releases, but Google Docs is evidently not one of those loose product…

One major difference being that Google does not read or incorporate the contents of your docs (or at least, we hope not). Once your docs are hooked up to an LLM, consider them both training data and readable to whatever minions are training the AI.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#104

Post by vogon_laureate »

jsnell wrote: post #101
888666 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To warn users so they're aware that the lifespan of the product they're using may be very short, and therefore they may lose something they put a lot of investment in. It's empathy.

Nobody reading HN needs to be made aware of it, and those are the only people you'll be able to reach with a HN comment. The thing is, these repetitive comments get spammed dozens of times on every Google-related post. They could be posted without reading the submission. Many of them probably are in fact probably posted just based on the title (seeing how many people posted basically exactly the same comments into a…

The HN Guidelines[1] also say that commenters should:

"Respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Just because people have posted similar comments about Google's penchant for killing projects, doesn't mean that they are "spamming". Consider, instead, that it may just reflect a groundswell of opinion borne out of bitter experience and disappointment about the company's record and their genuine concerns that this is yet one more tombstone in the expanding Google graveyard.[2]

  [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  [2]: https://gcemetery.co/

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#105

Post by smeagull »

endisneigh wrote: post #72

I wish the folks who clearly do not like Google would just not use their products instead of spamming every thread about how they will kill the product, true or not. —— Anyway, It’s not clear which model they’re using for this. I assume whatever Bard is using, but who knows. This is relevant because depending on the intended experience the latency will matter. Overall it’s not a bad idea, but I do wonder what the mon…

It's useful for people to be reminded of the most salient fact about a Google product.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#106

Post by nl »

I love this as a product idea.

I can't sign up (because I'm outside the US). I think I could build a local-only version with a local LLM possibly local datasources that would do a pretty good job.

Local LLMs are sufficiently powerful for query expansion techniques so the capability gap there to GPT4/Bard isn't a problem.

They are definitely behind on generative capabilities, but since I'm unable to use the product it is unclear how important that is in this use-case. If there is a video I'd appreciate a link!

I wonder how popular a local version of something like that would be?

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#107

Post by synetic »

endisneigh wrote: post #98
888666 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To warn users so they're aware that the lifespan of the product they're using may be very short, and therefore they may lose something they put a lot of investment in. It's empathy.

Shall every post for every company be spammed with irrelevant content about questionable actions conducted by said companies? Why not just submit a post about that directly and let that be the topic of discussion? Do you see how this entire thread is irrelevant to the submitted post? Do you see the problem?

If a company behaves badly then I think it’s warranted to bring up their bad behavior whenever that company is the topic of discussion. In the U.S. we mostly have regulatory capture and so people need to fight back or otherwise hold companies accountable.

I don’t know if Google qualifies in my mind for this sort of action but companies like BP, Exxon, and others do.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#108

Post by vogon_laureate »

endisneigh wrote: post #96
vogon_laureate wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are wary about Google product launches because of a well documented[1] pattern of corporate behaviour[2] when it comes to either the project's planning and execution, resourcing, or long-term support. You don't have to agree with those comments, but they are legitimate concerns being expressed by people who have been burned enough times by the company that it has developed a degree[3] of notoriety[4] for it as…

Like I mentioned, don’t use google products then. What’s the value of spamming this all of the time? The validity of the concern isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that it’s irrelevant to the content being posted.

How is it irrelevant? If a new project/product is being hyped by a company with a well documented history of hyping then abandoning projects and products, it's objectively a relevant comment.

For example, if there's a post about the new Threads app, and someone comments about Meta's record on, say... security, data privacy, moderation or support of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook, or something about their failed projects like Beacon, Sponsored Stories, Creative Labs, and Facebook Credits, those are likely going to be relevant comments because the corporate culture and past record on projects and products reveals something about what we might be able to expect from Threads.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#109

Post by pphysch »

thefourthchime wrote: post #84
pphysch wrote: post #69

Google Docs has been going strong for almost 2 decades, longer than the iPhone. NotebookLM is another way to read your Google Docs, with LLM assistance. If NotebookLM gets killed off, you still have your Google Docs and can read them with your eyeballs or some other LLM. HN loves to shit on Google for their loose trail-and-error approach to product releases, but Google Docs is evidently not one of those loose product…

I think everybody used to love Google. Around 2012, they were just making one hit after another. Google Docs, Google Maps, Gmail, they revolutionized search! What have they done in the last 10 years? Jack shit, except, launch a bunch of things that might have been cool, but then just killed it. How many messenger apps have they had? Google Stadia? I mean, come on, the list is incredible.

The idea of "stanning/hating" a megacorporation, one of the most powerful entities on the planet, is a priori absurd in the vein of Bryan Cantrill's "don't anthropomorphize Oracle".

Apple spends billions of dollars promoting its global brand as a culture and way of life; this does not mean we need to apply this framework to other brands. Spewing negativity (or positivity) about Google in this context is a self-own, because it signals that you have fallen for the "brand loyalty" cantrip.

Re: NotebookLM: An AI Notebook

#110

Post by jsnell »

vogon_laureate wrote: post #104
jsnell wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody reading HN needs to be made aware of it, and those are the only people you'll be able to reach with a HN comment. The thing is, these repetitive comments get spammed dozens of times on every Google-related post. They could be posted without reading the submission. Many of them probably are in fact probably posted just based on the title (seeing how many people posted basically exactly the same comments into a…

The HN Guidelines[1] also say that commenters should: "Respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith ." Just because people have posted similar comments about Google's penchant for killing projects, doesn't mean that they are "spamming". Consider, instead, that it may just reflect a groundswell of opinion borne out of bitter expe…

Sure, let's take it as a given that everyone who posts wholly original messages about "lol this product will be canceled" are doing so purely because of the harm they have personally suffered due to a product cancellation, and they just missed the previous messages on that subject. So what? It's still turned this thread into a wasteland and prevented any productive discussion.

Posting in good faith isn't a free pass to post off-topic, repetitive ir low-effort stuff. Just think about what the outcome of that kind of policy would be if applied across the board.

For example, a lot of people have very strong opinions on divisive political issues. Should they be picking submissions that are tangentially related to those issues and hijacking the comments section for discussion about that subject? No, of course not. And I'm not saying that because I disagree with their hypothetical political opinions. I'm saying it because if that becomes the norm, we can't have a discussion about the actual thing that 200 people thought was interesting enough to upvote, because all the discussion will be a retread of that political issue.

It's as if Rust evangelists posted comments about "this bug would never happen in Rust" in response to a technical deep dive to a security bug. Yes, I'm sure they'd be right. Yes, I'm sure they'd be posting that in good faith. There's even a small chance they'd be posting it because they think there's still HN readers who haven't heard the good word of Rust. But it'd also be a shallow comment, variations of which would be posted hundreds of times, and totally generic in that the exact same comment could have been posted to any of a hundred other submissions about a security issue.

Post reply on HN