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

The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 402 posts

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#91

Post by davkan »

mjr00 wrote: post #20
tokioyoyo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree, but I also think it's just not geared towards us because of our age and preexisting beliefs of "what podcasts/news/videos are supposed to be". Think of kids around age It's the same as short-video format for me. Sure, I can watch some TikToks from time to time, but making them, or continuously getting my news from them? Yeah, that's not gonna fly for me. However, for my niblings (age 8-17) that's bas…

The younger generation loves short-form, to-the-point stuff. Which is the exact opposite of what the current crop of GenAI makes. In a tiktok video, every sentence, every word counts because there's a time limit. If people don't engage with your content in the first 3 seconds, it's worthless. The video linked in another post starts off with 15 seconds of complete fluff. You'd have better engagement if you have a guy…

Is that true of tiktoks in general? I feel like a lot of the short form videos out there purposefully bait the watcher and drag on for 3/4 of their runtime.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#92

Post by andix »

syncsynchalt wrote: post #64

I _had_ to hear the pumpkin clip in context (at 2m50s): https://www.facebook.com/TheGardenIsland/videos/112002117287... Any ten seconds of that clip will do though, really.

Thanks, this is really important context, I expected a link to an example video as the first comment.

And yes, it's really bad. No idea how someone could think this could replace a human.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#93

Post by keiferski »

mattmaroon wrote: post #80
keiferski wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but I don’t think this is much evidence of anything. The point at which an AI can imitate a live-streaming human being is decades away. By then, we will almost certainly have developed a “real Human ID” system that verifies one’s humanity. I wrote about this more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42154928 The idea that AI is just going to eat all human creative activity because technology accelerates q…

How do you know it is decades away? A few years ago did you think LLMs would be where they are today? Is it possible you’re wrong?

Of course it’s possible I’m wrong. But if we make any sort of projection based on current developments, it would certainly seem that live-streaming AI indistinguishable from a human being is vastly beyond the capabilities of anything out today, and given current expenses and development times, seems to be at least a few decades in the future. To me that is an optimistic assumption, especially assuming that live presence or video quality will continue to improve as well (making it harder to fake.)

If you have a projection that says otherwise, I’d be glad to hear it. But if you don’t, then this idea is merely science fiction.

Making predictions about the future that are based on current accelerating developments are how you get people in the 1930s predicting flying cars by 2000.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#94

Post by ffsm8 »

ljsprague wrote: post #71
mjr00 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The younger generation loves short-form, to-the-point stuff. Which is the exact opposite of what the current crop of GenAI makes. In a tiktok video, every sentence, every word counts because there's a time limit. If people don't engage with your content in the first 3 seconds, it's worthless. The video linked in another post starts off with 15 seconds of complete fluff. You'd have better engagement if you have a guy…

I ... don't think there's a time limit on TikToks unless you mean that 60 minutes is a time limit. Are you thinking of Vine?

That's a pretty new thing though, in 2020 it was 1 min I believe, and most people skipped after 15-30s

Then it got increased to 3 min and now 10/60 min

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#95

Post by iwontberude »

icetank wrote: post #86
vunderba wrote: post #5

Slightly tangential, but this is the reason I'm baffled why people think that AI-driven podcasts would ever be worth listening to. If you can find an LLM+TTS generated podcast with even a FRACTION of the infectious energy as something like Good Job Brain, Radio Lab, or Ask Me Another, then I'll eat my hat. I don't even own one. I'll drive to the nearest hat store, purchase the tallest stovetop hat that I can afford a…

I think we will get a surprising amount of AI generated content in the future. During the first year of the Urkain invasion there was an enormous amount of AI voiced and scripted video content on YouTube. I think AI content will take over in the easy parts first. And over time take up more and more views.

Do you not use autocorrect?

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#96

Post by CuriouslyC »

keiferski wrote: post #53
sourcepluck wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go back to the 1990s (even probably the 2000s?) and ask literally anyone what they think of the idea of people spending huge quantities of their time on this mortal plane watching videos of other people talking about how they do their make up and pick their outfits. Are those videos "worth watching"? Are videos of people playing video games "worth watching"? Are videos of people opening products and saying out loud t…

videos of other people talking about how they do their make up and pick their outfits. Doesn't seem that much different from a fashion magazine interview about what X celebrity likes to wear. Those have been around for quite a long time.

At least in the past people were celebrities for a reason other than the number of followers they had on social. It'd be nice if we could return to a time when people were part of the public discourse because they were good at something (or their parents were rich, sadly).

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#97

Post by nsavage »

lawn wrote: post #89
datahack wrote: post #82

While I enjoyed the article, it’s just another in a line of the same article with different flavors and authors that all have the same fundamental error. The prevailing counterargument against AI consistently hinges on the present state of AI rather than the trajectory of its development: but what matters is not the capabilities of AI as they exist today, but the astonishing velocity at which those capabilities are e…

It's getting old but there's an xkcd for your kind of reasoning: https://xkcd.com/605/

Isn't this essentially the same argument as "there are only 10 covid cases in this area, nothing to worry about"?

It's really missing the point, the point is whether or not exponential growth is happening or not. It doesn't with husbands, it does with covid, time will tell about AI.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#98

Post by keiferski »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #96
keiferski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

videos of other people talking about how they do their make up and pick their outfits. Doesn't seem that much different from a fashion magazine interview about what X celebrity likes to wear. Those have been around for quite a long time.

At least in the past people were celebrities for a reason other than the number of followers they had on social. It'd be nice if we could return to a time when people were part of the public discourse because they were good at something (or their parents were rich, sadly).

That’s not true at all. Fame for no reason or dumb reasons is hardly a 21st century phenomenon.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#99

Post by mjr00 »

ljsprague wrote: post #71
mjr00 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The younger generation loves short-form, to-the-point stuff. Which is the exact opposite of what the current crop of GenAI makes. In a tiktok video, every sentence, every word counts because there's a time limit. If people don't engage with your content in the first 3 seconds, it's worthless. The video linked in another post starts off with 15 seconds of complete fluff. You'd have better engagement if you have a guy…

I ... don't think there's a time limit on TikToks unless you mean that 60 minutes is a time limit. Are you thinking of Vine?

If you want people to watch your content there's definitely a time limit. I don't mean anything imposed by the platform; I just mean if people aren't interested within 3 seconds, they're scrolling to the next video in their feed.

Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired

#100

Post by thesuitonym »

MrMetric wrote: post #79
sourcepluck wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go back to the 1990s (even probably the 2000s?) and ask literally anyone what they think of the idea of people spending huge quantities of their time on this mortal plane watching videos of other people talking about how they do their make up and pick their outfits. Are those videos "worth watching"? Are videos of people playing video games "worth watching"? Are videos of people opening products and saying out loud t…

To me, unboxing videos are documentation, not entertainment. When I need to know exactly what's in a box and how it's packaged, an unboxing video is the only source of that information.

What's in the box is almost always on the box, and how it's packaged seems to be very useless information.
Post reply on HN