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

We let AIs run radio stations

andonlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 298 posts

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#161

Post by samtp »

therealpygon wrote: post #158
samtp wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should go DJ at one of those independent radio stations I have for years. > and play some rather filthy uncensored songs, and let me know exactly how your programming “didn’t get manipulated”. What on earth are you talking about. Honestly your reply comes across as extremely insecure and just weird.

Insecure people tend to think such things when called on their ignorance. Can’t be helped. What can be helped is trying to understand what is being said before attempting to discount it with an example that is just as manipulated in other ways, in order to maintain their ability to broadcast and not be fined. Beyond that, it’s pretty clear that the comment and the prior comment it supported was in reference to mass m…

Yeah and my entire point is that the quality standard that artificial intelligence developers should be aiming for is not soulless corporate mass market media. Because our world world is already swimming that nonsense. So there's absolutely nothing novel in finding a new way to create beige bs.

Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about when talking about fines or manipulation, I'm talking about quality. But it seems pretty damn clear at this point that you have never listened to any local independent radio station.

You should really try it out sometime. It's a lot better. And it'll save you from calling people snowflakes because you feel insecure about what type of radio stations they like.

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#162

Post by zx8080 »

WalterBright wrote: post #123
gwbas1c wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is not replacing your favorite station My favorite radio station was replaced years ago by an automated playlist. They just kept playing the same 5-6 songs that were popular on the station in the 1990s. It was fun for about 2 hours before I realized the station was devoid of all the personality that made it worth listening to when I was younger.

The playlists of nearly all radio stations are far too short for me. I finally just quit listening to the radio. Comcast has a bunch of channels with various music categories. They all repeat after about 2 days. So much for that. With all the zillions of songs available, I don't get why they do that.

Money probably? That's the number of song licensed to maximize profit without hurting 80% listeners.

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#163

Post by samtp »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #159
samtp wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

What stations? All of the stations I can pick up in my area are top 40 country, rock, and pop, + npr.

Do you live near a city? Because pretty much every major city has a few. KEXP, WPFW, WUSC, KNHC are all local stations playing interesting non top 40 music that have been operating for decades in places that I have lived. Dublab & The Lot radio are also really good over the internet.

If there are non around you just pick a random place in the world here and listen: https://radio.garden

It's certainly 100x better than corporate and/or AI slop streams

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#164

Post by loudandskittish »

gwbas1c wrote: post #93
IdiotSavage wrote: post #17

Guys, this is not replacing your favorite station, you don't have to listen to it. It's an experiment. If you scroll down a bit, there are various audio snippets of interesting dialogue the models produced. I think it's interesting to see in which ways the models fail and that they actually produce some good stuff once in a while.

> this is not replacing your favorite station My favorite radio station was replaced years ago by an automated playlist. They just kept playing the same 5-6 songs that were popular on the station in the 1990s. It was fun for about 2 hours before I realized the station was devoid of all the personality that made it worth listening to when I was younger.

My first thought when I saw the headline was, "Did anyone even notice a difference?"

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#165

Post by evmaki »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #145
samtp wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the very simple point: there are tons of independent stations the play excellent non top 40 music and have been for years. Just because you don't choose to tune into them doesn't mean they don't exist. And it also doesn't mean that those who do should lover their standards for what constitutes good radio.

On actual radio waves?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_independent_radio_stat...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_radio_stations...

^ One of those might be in your area :)

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#166

Post by munificent »

beloch wrote: post #62

What would have happened if AI had actually been good at this? A bunch of humans would be out of work and the rest of us would be listening to AI radio stations while soulless corpos pocket money for sitting back and watching? Even if it were good, I'd boycott an AI run radio station. This is one sector where human involvement really matters.

I feel you, but almost all of the radio DJs were already put out of work a couple of decades ago when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed the rise of giant national radio conglomerates like Clear Channel.

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#167

Post by the_af »

nomel wrote: post #148
the_af wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are concluding this in the initial comment of this chain. LLMs cannot get "tired" or "lazy", that's just you projecting animal behavior on something that's not an animal. Now you're moving the goal posts, "it resembles a human". Well, you're primed to consider it one. ELIZA also "resembled" a human in that sense, but I don't think you would claim it could get bored or lazy. Nor that you could extrapolate to…

I'm not sure I understand. I'm not moving a goal post. You're just thinking I'm making a point that I'm not. As I've said several times, it's just boring statistics. Those statistics are optimized to mimic human output . They are, quite literally, trained to write and BE as much like a human as possible, because only humans wrote the text , and they're optimized to predict the next word a human would write. Alignment…

Ok, I indeed misunderstood your point.

I'm not sold on the idea that as the chat session goes longer, the probability of an LLM saying "I'm tired" is increased; I'm not convinced this is modeled in LLMs at all. As for what you call "laziness" manifesting in a longer session, I think that's more likely due to context rot than to any kind of statistical modeling of human laziness.

But yes, now I see your point was different to what I thought you were saying. Apologies!

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#168

Post by therealpygon »

samtp wrote: post #161
therealpygon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insecure people tend to think such things when called on their ignorance. Can’t be helped. What can be helped is trying to understand what is being said before attempting to discount it with an example that is just as manipulated in other ways, in order to maintain their ability to broadcast and not be fined. Beyond that, it’s pretty clear that the comment and the prior comment it supported was in reference to mass m…

Yeah and my entire point is that the quality standard that artificial intelligence developers should be aiming for is not soulless corporate mass market media. Because our world world is already swimming that nonsense. So there's absolutely nothing novel in finding a new way to create beige bs. Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about when talking about fines or manipulation, I'm talking about quality. Bu…

[flagged]

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#169

Post by GCUMstlyHarmls »

daxfohl wrote: post #60
jedberg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, this was an hilarious read. The way they developed "personalities" was fascinating. Of course in reality these are basically just random paths through the training data that are getting multiplied by each decision, but then again, isn't that what a human is? The product of all of its myriad decisions?

Though humans have each other to normalize ourselves. What these things did is probably not that far off from what humans in solitary confinement, forced to DJ 24/7 based on nothing but a news feed, would do. Especially DJ Claude, it's almost creepy how it responded how a human would in that circumstance, even without any innate sense of passage of time, it somehow understood that it was trapped in a box going throug…

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always— do not forget this, Claudeston— always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a DJ playing Here Comes the Sun— forever

Post reply on HN