Moral implications of LLM aside, this is an always-online, subscription-based toy that will eventually turn into a brick (unless the parent is an HN-er). I find it really sad that this kind of toy is sold in stores.
Why?
Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
171–180 of 183 posts
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#172Moral implications of LLM aside, this is an always-online, subscription-based toy that will eventually turn into a brick (unless the parent is an HN-er). I find it really sad that this kind of toy is sold in stores.
Why?
This is up there with "Easy-Bake Oven" among plastic doodads that will be used for ~40 minutes and then added to a pile of plastic garbage many adults keep in their basement.
I don't oppose to the open backend of the device (it should be table-stakes for this kinda thing), but the concept seems really zero-sum and disposable. It relies on a form-factor that most kids don't use and depends on the novelty of AI which will wear off pretty fast. As much as I hate to say it, this should have been an app or a website.
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#173Moral implications of LLM aside, this is an always-online, subscription-based toy that will eventually turn into a brick (unless the parent is an HN-er). I find it really sad that this kind of toy is sold in stores.
And with Klarna payments!
This entire page makes me uneasy
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seeing kids role-play with LLMs and especially when they hallucinate is a lot of fun. I think this is kinda fucked up
Yea, this seems so incredibly wrong to me. How somebody can write that, and not reel from comprehending the implications of what they're doing to their child, is so far beyond me.
Oh give it a break, KYLE ...
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you just answer that in the parent comment? Isn't that a simpler, clearer and better answer? Or you mean "in theory yes, but actually no"? Maybe this thing has an ifixit score of 0 so that you'd better not bother? > I would buy a dev board + build it yourself, you will get a much better experience then trying to reuse the existing thing. Sounds like it. Dude you can be honest here. Which is almost saying no…
> Sounds like it. Dude you can be honest here. I'm going to politely weigh in here and say things Sean won't say about himself. You're talking to someone who has spent the last ten years building open source WebRTC software that many, many, many people use and that he's never tried to commercialize. He works tirelessly to make the Pion community welcoming to everyone, from engineers with a ton of networking/video exp…
Thanks for the context but I don't see how it's related to what I was asking. You could be Thomas Edison and I'd still ask the same question.
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you just answer that in the parent comment? Isn't that a simpler, clearer and better answer? Or you mean "in theory yes, but actually no"? Maybe this thing has an ifixit score of 0 so that you'd better not bother? > I would buy a dev board + build it yourself, you will get a much better experience then trying to reuse the existing thing. Sounds like it. Dude you can be honest here. Which is almost saying no…
This wasn’t built to be a general purpose phone. It’s a single purpose tool, if it had full SIP support it would need more expensive hardware. When I worked on this I knew I wasn’t building some interoperable general tool. I am being honest with you. For me the ‘hacker spirit’ means cracking things open and learning how they work. So I totally encourage others to do it.
I would be perfectly fine with taking "in theory yes but actually no" (which is basically what you are saying) as the answer instead of this roundabout way of phrasing it. I appreciate what you did, but this discussion is kind of unnecessary.
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#177Everything wrong with the current flavor of Ai in a single post/product, magnificient.
Little dramatic, don't you think?
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#178Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> indistinguishable from what humans once created It's distinguishable from original art in that it is, by definition, derivative and unoriginal.
What percentage of humans do you consider capable of producing art that is non derivative, unoriginal, and aesthetically pleasing at the same time?
You may be able to deduce that percentage from the percentage of humans who make art, and the percentage of art that contains original elements. (Whether it's aesthetically pleasing has no bearing on whether it is art).
All art is derivative to some extent, because all artists have absorbed cultural influences and have seen prior art. But some art contains elements and ideas which are not synthesized from prior art. You can prove this. If art were only synthesized from prior art, then there would never be any addition to its vocabulary. There are conceptual "breakthroughs" which cannot happen just by looking at and iterating upon existing art.
If an AI had been trained only on classical Greek sculpture, it could not invent Cubism or Impressionism or Surrealism. Not just that: It would have no reason to invent these schools of art. The only impetus it might have would be if a human asked it to invent a school of art; and then it could only draw upon its training data.
That's why to call AI output "art" is to fundamentally misunderstand what art is. Art is not the final result or product. An aesthetically pleasing painting is not automatically art, outside the limited commercial sense. Art is the intention of the artist and the unique characteristics of the artist made manifest in the creative process which required discovering something new. The actual output, the thing on the canvas, is just evidence of that process, it is not the art itself.
More often than not, this is also a physical process involving trial and error with real materials in a world that is many orders of magnitude more complicated than what AI currently understands.
An equation on a blackboard is not a mathematical proof, it is the residue of the logic of the proof. In the same way, a painting is the residue of art. A sculpture is a residue of the artistic process by which a person learned to turn a shapeless mass into an imagined 3D object.
This is why AI can only make simulacrum of the final result of art, the same way it can simulate coming up with a proof for an algorithm. But as we frequently see when we ask it to analyze or create an algorithm, it cannot provide a true proof, because it cannot think of failure modes unless we explicitly point them out, nor can it think of concepts that are not in its existing canon of knowledge.
Maybe with AGI this will change. But passing a Turing test and making pictures doesn't mean it can actually create anything like art.
Re: Show HN: AI toy I worked on is in stores
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage of humans do you consider capable of producing art that is non derivative, unoriginal, and aesthetically pleasing at the same time?
You may be able to deduce that percentage from the percentage of humans who make art, and the percentage of art that contains original elements. (Whether it's aesthetically pleasing has no bearing on whether it is art). All art is derivative to some extent, because all artists have absorbed cultural influences and have seen prior art. But some art contains elements and ideas which are not synthesized from prior art.…
This sounds a bit like copium. There's more than one AI based technique for generating images, and its almost trivial to ask an ai to both come up with an original art style and to generate images in what it says to be original.
There are AIs that come up with working mathematical proofs now and they are getting better at it. Your perception of the current SOTA is about 18 months out of date