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

Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

podcast.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#31

Post by dqpb »

jasonlotito wrote: post #20

I think it's important that this makes it clear that this is fake. The title here is 100% a lie. At least, it should be "AI Generated Fake Lex Fridman interviews Fake Richard Feynman." Have some self-respect.

This is the problem with "fake news" and increasingly AI generated content. From an information theoretic perspective this is a perfect title. It sounds 100% improbable, it is therefore 100% surprising, yet it (apparently) delivers what it says it does.

From a receivers point of view, this message is a super-carrier of information, unless (or until) they can discern that it's fake.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#32

Post by [deleted] »

subarctic wrote: post #29

Now that these deepfake interviews are getting posted regularly, they should have something in the title indicating that they are deepfakes / AI-generated. I thought this was an old interview with Richard Feynman that someone had found and posted, which would've been pretty cool, but instead it's just another one of these auto-generated interviews. (It being from podcast.ai was what gave it away since I saw the last…

[deleted]

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#33

Post by dqpb »

RobertDeNiro wrote: post #10

Is there any value to these? like its a cool tech demo, but they are mostly saying non sense.

They mostly don't say nonsense. I listened to the whole thing and I found it very convincing. I've never been able to listen all the way through AI generated content before. It's hard for me to believe this was 100% AI generated.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#34

Post by sshine »

subarctic wrote: post #29

Now that these deepfake interviews are getting posted regularly, they should have something in the title indicating that they are deepfakes / AI-generated. I thought this was an old interview with Richard Feynman that someone had found and posted, which would've been pretty cool, but instead it's just another one of these auto-generated interviews. (It being from podcast.ai was what gave it away since I saw the last…

> should have something in the title indicating that they are deepfakes

What gave it away for me is that there is only a small overlap in time when Feynman and Fridman were both alive. Feynman died in 1988 and Fridman was born in 1983. :)

Fridman is around my age and Feynman was always a historical figure.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#35

Post by fuckstick »

subarctic wrote: post #29

Now that these deepfake interviews are getting posted regularly, they should have something in the title indicating that they are deepfakes / AI-generated. I thought this was an old interview with Richard Feynman that someone had found and posted, which would've been pretty cool, but instead it's just another one of these auto-generated interviews. (It being from podcast.ai was what gave it away since I saw the last…

Lex Fridman was born in 1983 and Feynman died in 1988, that's more obvious than Steve Jobs and Joe Rogan since although Rogan wasn't doing much in interviewing during Jobs' life, it's plausible since they are somewhat contemporaries.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#37

Post by canucklady »

twblalock wrote: post #13
canucklady wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such an insane worldview. Lots of things are technically possible but socially or legally discouraged. You could infringe copyright. You could steal. You could walk around naked. It's not whining to say that something is outside of social norms.

When it's trivially easy to break the law and there are no obvious victims, and it can be done on computers, those rules go out the window. Almost everyone who shared music on Napster would have never shoplifted a CD from a record store. Almost everyone who shares TV episodes on Bittorrent would never have stolen a DVD from a store or climbed up a power pole to illegally tap into cable.

Your single counter example is "people do media piracy". I personally do torrent media, and I'm pretty clear eyed that I do it because there are no negative consequences for me. It has nothing to do with computers or victims. There's no enforcement. If ISPs started fining people or cutting off access for pirating media I would stop because those consequences are worse than the benefit I get.

Who benefits from making deepfakes, and how do we respond to them? By simply throwing our hands up in the air and upvoting you're encouraging this behaviour by normalizing it. If people recognize it as deception that violates consent it will be discouraged.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#38

Post by BudaDude »

rngname22 wrote: post #22
twblalock wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's trivially easy to break the law and there are no obvious victims, and it can be done on computers, those rules go out the window. Almost everyone who shared music on Napster would have never shoplifted a CD from a record store. Almost everyone who shares TV episodes on Bittorrent would never have stolen a DVD from a store or climbed up a power pole to illegally tap into cable.

When it becomes trivial to 3d print gray goo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo ) I wonder if you'll sing the same tune to humanity's destruction or if you'd admit that there's a spectrum and there's some threshold past which a technology becomes condemnable. Because right now your statement basically implies there is no such threshold (since clearly the person you're replying to thinks podcast.ai is past it).

Humanity had a good run. If 3D printing and AI podcasts is what ends us all, then so be it.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#40

Post by SpaceManNabs »

Let the dead be dead. Read what they left us. Watch what they left us. Listen to what they left us. Touch what they left us.

But if they weren't aware of this future or didn't leave any instructions on how to perceive them if such a future came about, then they should be left alone.

Post reply on HN