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

101–110 of 402 posts

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

#101

Post by insane_dreamer »

Unfortunately, I see this as only a small temporary setback in the unstoppable quest to replace humans with AI to cut corporate costs.

The aspect of AI that isn't discussed enough is not what are those formerly employed going to do next, but rather that it will potentially represent the largest transfer of wealth in history as money which was going into employees' salaries is instead going to shareholders via those large companies who have the ability to produce the AIs (even if there are a host of small companies who act as an intermediate layer, such as the Israeli firm in this case).

I do think there is going to be a backlash because of our need for and desire for human connections, which AI won't provide. But that will become more expensive, and not the norm. Just like we can still buy farmer-fresh food but only a minority segment of the population can afford it because it costs 3x what is pushed as "food" at Walmart.

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

#102

Post by lukev »

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…

But we don't know if AI development is following an exponential or sigmoid curve (actually we do kind of, now, but that's beside the point for this post.)

A wise institution will make decisions based on current capabilities, not a prognostication.

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

#103

Post by palla89 »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #88
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…

We've been through this song and dance before. AI researchers make legitimately impressive breakthroughs in specific tasks, people extrapolate linear growth, the air comes out of the balloon after a couple years when it turns out we couldn't just throw progressively larger models at the problem to emulate human cognition. I'm surprised that tech workers who should be the most skeptical about this kind of stuff end up…

This comment summarize my thought in the best way.

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

#104

Post by refulgentis »

keiferski wrote: post #98
CuriouslyC wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No dog in this fight, I don't know what exactly you're doing, but I'd cautiously point out that it is, in fact, novel to the internet era to watch rando microcelebrities doing makeup step by step, no matter how long we delay acknowledging that with microquibbles.

I could throw in an example of how I'll watch boring videos of a couple playing with their birds for 90 minutes on Youtube. You can link me to the Wikipedia page on slow TV (via Norway), and it won't erase the simple, boring, straightforward, fact that it is a phenomenon.

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

#105

Post by chrononaut »

tomcam wrote: post #3

Incredibly, no videos linked in an article about a video newscast. I think this is an example. The AI doesn't even pronounce "AI" correctly. Interestingly, it looks slightly offscreen just the way real newsreaders do when they're on prompter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa7Q2S7VWUk They do a lot right. There's interaction between the bots. They look kind of professional but not Los Angeles/New York quality, which…

The way the mouths move are so far off from the words they're speaking that my first impressions would be they're just playing a video loop of these people talking about other random things and dubbing over it.

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

#106

Post by glitchc »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #88
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…

We've been through this song and dance before. AI researchers make legitimately impressive breakthroughs in specific tasks, people extrapolate linear growth, the air comes out of the balloon after a couple years when it turns out we couldn't just throw progressively larger models at the problem to emulate human cognition. I'm surprised that tech workers who should be the most skeptical about this kind of stuff end up…

It's like con artists and management consultants. They are the most susceptible because they drink the koolaid.

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

#107

Post by AstralStorm »

cogman10 wrote: post #29
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…

Counterpoint, GenAI is great at copying styles and typically works best with shorter content. For example, I could very easily see GenAI being able to produce 1 million TikTok dance challenges.

Which will make them completely worthless by dilution and not stand out. Oops.

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

#108

Post by simplyluke »

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…

What's funny is every GenAI "incredible email/essay" would be better communicated with the prompt used to generate it.

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

#109

Post by richardw »

bdndndndbve wrote: post #88
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…

We've been through this song and dance before. AI researchers make legitimately impressive breakthroughs in specific tasks, people extrapolate linear growth, the air comes out of the balloon after a couple years when it turns out we couldn't just throw progressively larger models at the problem to emulate human cognition. I'm surprised that tech workers who should be the most skeptical about this kind of stuff end up…

Two things can both be true. I keep arguing both sides because:

1 Unless you’re aware of near term limits you think AI is going to the stars next year.

2 Architectures change. The only thing that doesn’t change is that we generally push on, temporarily limits are usually overcome and there’s a lot riding on this. It’s not a smart move to bet against progress over the medium term. This is also where the real benefits and risks lie.

Is AI in general more like going to space, or string theory? One is hard but doable. Other is a tar pit for money and talent. We are all currently placing our bets.

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

#110

Post by insane_dreamer »

tomcam wrote: post #3

Incredibly, no videos linked in an article about a video newscast. I think this is an example. The AI doesn't even pronounce "AI" correctly. Interestingly, it looks slightly offscreen just the way real newsreaders do when they're on prompter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa7Q2S7VWUk They do a lot right. There's interaction between the bots. They look kind of professional but not Los Angeles/New York quality, which…

"James" arm motion in a loop.
Post reply on HN