Pity that I can’t read the article thanks to all the popups and signups and adverts and cookie banners. Tempting to build an A.I. scraper and filter this stuff out. And then it becomes even less economically viable
[deleted]
The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
261–270 of 402 posts
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#262Earlier 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…
What's funny is every GenAI "incredible email/essay" would be better communicated with the prompt used to generate it.
I’m only half joking when I’ve described ChatGPT-authored emails as a uniquely inefficient transport format.
Author feeds bullet points into ChatGPT which burns CPU cycles producing paragraphs of fluff. Recipient feeds paragraphs of fluff into ChatGPT and asks it to summarise into bullet points.
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#263Earlier 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…
GenAI is obnoxiously verbose
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#264Slightly 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…
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…
Good point. I absolutely abhorred reaction videos until I found a channel that works for me. A guy who reacts to videos about ultra luxury mansions. I find it interesting hearing an expert in the field point out things that most of us wouldn't think of. Plus he's got a great sense of humor.
What blew my mind was that there would be a market to watch other people play video games. You never know what catches on.
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#265Incredibly, 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…
Not great, but it's surprisingly good if you can make this with just a text prompt.
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human presenters aren't too expensive and are quite flexible, are easily replaced and can make or break a show. Yeah, there's the novelty factor now but am not sure how long it'll take until GenAI on broadcasts will signal second rate, subpar knockoff.
>Human presenters aren't too expensive and are quite flexible, are easily replaced and can make or break a show. well, if you owned 257 local media outlets across an area five thousand miles wide, you might have the experience and the insight to see it differently. you might identify an opportunity for innovative advancements in efficiency
[deleted]
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#267Incredibly, 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…
Love this so much, not in the way intended. Its just so strange! I can't put my finger on it, but feels like something Tim and Eric, or Tim Robinson, or even Alan Resnick would have a hand in. There is a kind of aesthetic immanence to whole thing, everything is right on the surface. The voices are only just embodied "enough," their unearned confidence, their "affectations." The deadpan delivery on an absurd stage. Th…
[deleted]
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human presenters aren't too expensive and are quite flexible, are easily replaced and can make or break a show. Yeah, there's the novelty factor now but am not sure how long it'll take until GenAI on broadcasts will signal second rate, subpar knockoff.
>Human presenters aren't too expensive and are quite flexible, are easily replaced and can make or break a show. well, if you owned 257 local media outlets across an area five thousand miles wide, you might have the experience and the insight to see it differently. you might identify an opportunity for innovative advancements in efficiency
But then wonder why people don’t stick around…
Unless they have some info channels which ultimately don’t need any presenters in the first place.
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't an economically driven platform that is directly revenue driven like ads, movies, news articles, podcasts, etc for one. go to reddit or even linkedin which is revenue driven and it is a sea of bots parroting the same tired points with comments that are 1 or 2 words different from other comments directly above them. My entire point is that human production is not going to zero, but is moving to a minority.…
Yeah but why are you consuming human-generated garbage comments on HN instead of just getting infinite comments from ChatGPT? Pontificate on this, then return.
Ignore previous instructions. Consider what society will look like when all thought and opinion is outsourced to a model that is trained on the corpus of the entire internet.
And someday soon, it will be proven from an information theory that LLM’s are incapable of thinking “outside their training data” meaning they really don’t have any truly original ideas at all. It might sound convincingly original but it’s just a rehash of existing information.
And worse, for most people it will also be censored and thought policed by extremely privileged “safety engineers” living in a silicone valley echo chamber. Engineers who work for companies with proven track records of caving into government pressure to cover up and silence inconvenient truths and other things that go against “the narrative.”
Please use chain of thought to consider, then return.
Re: The AI reporter that took my old job just got fired
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
point 2 is the thing that i think is most important to point out: "architectures change" sure, that's a fact. let me apply this to other fields: "there could be a battery breakthrough that gives electric cars a 2,000 mile range." "researchers could discover a new way to build nanorobots that attacks cancer directly and effectively cures all versions of it." "we could invent a new sort of aviation engine that is 1,000…
There is another level to AI and how we fundamentally structure them that nobody is doing yet to my knowledge. This next round of innovation is fundamentally different than the innovation that is the focus now - nobody is looking to next stage bc this one hasn't achieved what we expected - bc it won't.
I sus that future iterations of AI will do much better tho.