I find the post fact comparative analysis of their focus an interesting way to monitor what kind of changes the diff vendors introduce.
Much better than spot checking on specific problems.
We let AIs run radio stations
141–150 of 298 posts
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should find some better radio stations. There are tons of independent stations the play excellent non top 40 music and have been for years. This is like saying the the movies that people like are manipulated but only focusing on what is played at big box theaters.
You're missing the point. Radio was consolidated into Clear Channel and took away what made radio radio. Local radio. Like what made Chicago jazz different from New York jazz etc. Not internet stations that may as well be podcasts. Regional culture.
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.
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#143Guys, 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.
Radio stations are like baseball games. I listen for all the unusual moments, not the core baseball game. That’s actually the filler.
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#144What 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.
We have AI radio station for years? All the algorithms perform better than the general models though.
I’ve not listened to a radio station for years. No offense :/
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. Radio was consolidated into Clear Channel and took away what made radio radio. Local radio. Like what made Chicago jazz different from New York jazz etc. Not internet stations that may as well be podcasts. Regional culture.
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?
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#146Guys, 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.
Experiment: "We got AI to do things and it did weird stuff sometimes". Brilliant! Amazing! I'm glad ~4 years down the line we're still re-discovering Ha Ha Funny Output.
I am reminded of how not even 2 weeks ago we had an “experiment” of rewriting Bun in Rust.
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#147Earlier 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.
My local: https://threedradio.com/
("My" meaning local to me, not that it belongs to me)
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is concluding that. These models are trained on human text. It's just statistics. It will respond like a human because it was trained on human text. They have to beat the hell out of the foundation models to get push the statistics how they are. I don't see this as anything but boring residuals of not beating hard enough.
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 is partly about removing the models perception of human self. See reports of people who had access to them, pre alignment. This is statistically sound.
It's statistics optimized to predict the next word a human would write, to mimic a human writing as closely as possible, because that is the loss function. Don't assume I think there's more to it.
This does not mean they contain systems that let them get tired. But, this does mean there are latent spaces that progress to generating text that contain text driven by human biology, because it's in the training data. I've also had Claude refer to itself as "she". Does that mean it's a woman? No, it means there was a little bit extra "she" mentions in the training data (btw, this 100% repeatable behavior left with 3.7. They probably cleaned the data a bit better, or hammered it out in alignment).
What percentage of text (these models were trained on all of it) is written from a "I am not a human" type perspective vs from a "I am human" perspective? That's roughly the kind of bias you should see in a base model.
edit: rearranged and reduced redundancy.
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you — but what do you think Spotify or any of the other streaming services are? In my mind, algorithmic streaming services have much more in common with this "experiment" than your local radio DJ.
Spotify has a team of human editors who curate playlists. It's not all algorithmic. Those are exactly the jobs that something like this is directly threatening.
You mean a team of humans who are labelling datasets?
Re: We let AIs run radio stations
#150How was this built? OpenClaw with ElevenLabs?