Live data from Hacker News

GPT‑Live

openai.com

171–180 of 556 posts

Re: GPT‑Live

#171

This 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

Just give it a scifi robot voice and pretend you're on a spaceship

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Re: GPT‑Live

#173

This 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

Again, we're paying for the fact that Sam Altman didn't understand the movie her

Re: GPT‑Live

#174
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm no longer writing code from scratch, as I used to do before. So, very soon, it will be "AI can now do X" makes it so I can't also do X? Same with many creative works. Radio music already sounds so plastic. I lost interest in crafting my text drafts because I can just dump some ugly text and get it refined by AI.

Re: GPT‑Live

#176
post #19

I had preview access to this one for a few weeks. It's very good. I had one conversation that lasted a full hour while I was walking the dog, got some good brainstorming done against one of my projects. The best feature is that it can delegate questions out to GPT-5.5 in the background, so you're no longer restricted to a voice model that's several years behind the frontier. I did report a fun bug with it though: it…

I highly recommend simply enjoying the walk.

[flagged]

Re: GPT‑Live

#177

(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!

[dead]

Re: GPT‑Live

#178
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Playing the devil's advocate a little, you say "can't also do", but that implies prohibition, not hindering. Hindering is not total like that.

It's like trying to have meaningful conversations on Twitter. You don't go to Twitter to do things like that. Can you? Sure. It's just not what the format and the conventions (and the people) lend themselves to.

I don't think there's much merit in pretending that human activities are only shaped by hard limits.

Re: GPT‑Live

#180
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Hasnt this already been thoroughly discussed? Your ability to do X degrades as you offload it more frequently, eventually to the point that you can no longer even vet the quality of the output.

I think the parent is saying now that that is attempting to be applied to "creativity" directly, as opposed to something like a shift of medium, that it threatens many peoples' ability to maintain creative capabilities.

Anecdotally I've already experienced this at work where post-AI we had a junior completely stagnate and a senior with over a decade of experience in the bay atrophy to the point that he had to be let go.

Post reply on HN