I'm crying, that guy who tries to get it to count to 100 may actually have a chance
GPT‑Live
151–160 of 556 posts
Re: GPT‑Live
#152This is the opposite direction AI should be going. Human relationships are the most valuable thing we have, and so, naturally, technology seeks to intermediate and now replace them. I'm not Catholic, but this podcast presents a very interesting argument against talking to AI as if they were human: https://newpolity.com/podcasts-hub/debate-chatbots
Isn’t voice I difference in degree rather than in kind? I definitely talk to AI as if it were human (one might say the UX of AI is to emulate a human). And a large portion of my interaction with humans is via text, for example, this post!
Right, I think the challenge is that LLMs are essentially language-based, which is itself a very convenient interface. Covering the maximally humanistic default interface with something more mechanical is like tying your own shoelaces together, but it would protect us from the psychological hijacking we're so prone to when interacting with these machines.
Re: GPT‑Live
#153[dead]
Re: GPT‑Live
#154This is the opposite direction AI should be going. Human relationships are the most valuable thing we have, and so, naturally, technology seeks to intermediate and now replace them. I'm not Catholic, but this podcast presents a very interesting argument against talking to AI as if they were human: https://newpolity.com/podcasts-hub/debate-chatbots
Most of what AI does is already in wrong direction. Not just human-to-human interaction, it took away thinking, creative work, sensory perception (glasses) and responses. People call it as helping humans, but I call it as sucking away the "human-ness" from humans. After the damage is done, the mega corps would simply shrug and will say "Well, we were just responding to our business competition" The business knows no…
I don't understand this line of reasoning. How are you hindered from doing any of those things? What part of "AI can now do X" makes it so you can't also do X?
Re: GPT‑Live
#155This is the opposite direction AI should be going. Human relationships are the most valuable thing we have, and so, naturally, technology seeks to intermediate and now replace them. I'm not Catholic, but this podcast presents a very interesting argument against talking to AI as if they were human: https://newpolity.com/podcasts-hub/debate-chatbots
> This is the opposite direction AI should be going. There is no moral obligation, in any domain, to refuse to make a product that adults, with full informed consent, find useful and purchase. Who are you to say you know better than the market?
Market conditions are not a moral standard either, nor do they represent any cohesive one in particular. Not sure why you're contrasting their opinion with this, it's literally no better.
Re: GPT‑Live
#156Great video by the way. Extremely good!
One piece of feedback on that to anyone from their team, could not get audio sync in Firefox. Chrome worked fine.
Re: GPT‑Live
#157are these human actors or are is the whole demo AI generated?
Re: GPT‑Live
#158(Atty from OpenAI here) GPT-Live-1 is the first version of a new generation of models, and we believe the full-duplex architecture + delegation enables entirely new ways of human-AI interaction. Would love to hear your feedback!
- As models get better, have you considered some kind of filter or particular cadence to serve as a reminder that the user is not talking to a human?
- The videos felt scripted and dishonest
Re: GPT‑Live
#159I'm crying, that guy who tries to get it to count to 100 may actually have a chance
[dead]
Re: GPT‑Live
#160I reaaaaaally hope we have an option to disable those random ums and ahhs that interrupt for no reason. :|
I was surprised all that made it into the demo video. Did not seem cool. Is that "active listening" or something?