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

GPT‑Live

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 556 posts

Re: GPT‑Live

#491

Post by OrangeMusic »

simongray wrote: post #488
OrangeMusic wrote: post #479

The ad with the grandmas is cute and funny, but from the first 20 seconds you can see that the voice annoyingly interrupts people while they are talking. It's almost as if it tries to reply too fast - faster than a real person would, and the results is that it replies while you're still talking. Oh and there was also a small fail in the live translate demo: the grandma says "tell him that..." which the bot translates…

They don't act the way humans would. It's normal to start a sentence after the other person in the conversation pauses, especially if you're eager to say something (like the chat agent is), but a real human is socially aware and would in most cases immediately cease talking if the other person starts another sentence at the same time. Humans do this so much in their conversations that the other person doesn't really…

Exactly. If they have a setting somewhere for the minimum duration of a pause in the user's speech before starting replying, they should just crank it up.

In this other add [1], it's even worse, the user has to say "There's more to the story though" and almost looks annoyed + the agent overreacts to _that_ with a weird "Aaaaahh!".

Oh well... I'm sure they'll get it right eventually.

[1] https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-live/?video=1208099...

Re: GPT‑Live

#492

Post by GrinningFool »

sauwan wrote: post #203
jjulius wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly recommend simply enjoying the walk.

I think you're missing the counterfactual. I now have two choices: 1) sit behind my desk and work, or 2) walk and talk something out. Before this model, the voice models were pretty dumb and annoying to work with. We'll see if this changes that.

You could walk and talk it out without anyone on the other end too. Works for me, at least. People just assume I'm on the phone.

Re: GPT‑Live

#494

Post by FridgeSeal »

spongebobstoes wrote: post #389
overgard wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a personal context, you're not hindered from doing those things, so you're correct in that regard. The problem is economic and social. The AI is mediocre enough to drive the value of those things way down; possibly to zero. When something isn't valuable, people are less likely to learn it, and in the future it's less likely that anyone will actually have those skills. For example, we've slopped many illustrators o…

"starving artist" is not a new concept AI doesn't stop creative people from creating. it gives creative people an additional tool with which to create

This is repeatedly the argument rolled out by people desperate to get us to accept it at all costs.

Ai doesn’t technically stop me writing code. But it’s sucked so much joy and interest out of it, that I can’t scrape together the motivation to work on side projects anymore. It has a “chilling effect” the effects of which are notoriously indirect to observe.

Re: GPT‑Live

#495

Post by FridgeSeal »

supern0va wrote: post #372
mlsu wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extent to which it's true is the extent of the evilness of the technology. Go search the phrase "ai boyfriend" on reddit sometime; imagine what it will be like when society is fully baked with this shit. You're talking to AIs all day at work. You're talking to AI's when you use social media. You're talking to AIs for therapy. You're talking to AIs on dating apps. If your answer is "well I'll simply touch grass" I…

I can't help but think you're conflating cause and effect. People are using a tool (AI) to apply a band-aid to a widespread social problem (loneliness and isolation). It's possible that an "AI boyfriend" might make someone less prone to put in the continued effort to keep rolling the dice on dating apps, but the reality is that there's a more fundamental problem driving this. Also, I want this tool for work. Just bec…

“Who cares about dirty syringes being left in the street, it’s really important for my work that I have access to the heroin I need”.

Things in society don’t exist in a vacuum, and “who cares about them, so long as I get my needs” is quite literally a part of the problem being discussed.

Re: GPT‑Live

#496

Post by FridgeSeal »

hoppp wrote: post #102
jonstaab wrote: post #76

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

But a lot of humans can't engage in meaningful technical conversations... So why not use a tool for that?

Somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy no?

- nobody else with the skills - talk to machine - nobody develops the skills to have a conversation - go to step 1. - bonus step: your own skills atrophy too.

Re: GPT‑Live

#497

Post by NotSuspicious »

athyuttamre wrote: post #28

(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!

Super nice to be able to finally have voice mode search stuff in the background. The more conservational vibe is also a nice touch. The real game-changer we're all waiting on, though, is being able to vibecode/deeply interact with an OS through voice mode. Until then voice mode will continue to be a niche, interesting product. Once that's implemented, though, it will be one of the most important technologies available. There's a lot of people I know that don't use a lot of the frontier capabilities of AI right now because of the required typing interface. Once that's changed and you can interact with these capabilities through voice mode (and ideally on your phone) I definitely see them and lots of people like them becoming big users of AI.

Re: GPT‑Live

#498

Post by FridgeSeal »

quotemstr wrote: post #117
jonstaab wrote: post #76

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

> 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?

This is a cute argument to make, which patently doesn’t work in the face of decades of evidence on the pernicious effects of social media _alone_, let alone the “turbo infantilising sycophancy machine”.

Pretending that everything’s totally fine and ok because “it’s adults” really just disregards reality.

Re: GPT‑Live

#499

Post by emilfihlman »

I hope they fixed the models in that they don't interrupt and jump in and that you can order them to be silent. Previous model could not be silent and always cut me off and spoke over me.

Re: GPT‑Live

#500

Post by FridgeSeal »

WarmWash wrote: post #308
Fraterkes wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey! Bit of an unusual question maybe: if this stuff further exarcerbates the loneliness epidemic and atomization of society, will you be able to live with yourself you think? If you hear about teenagers only spending time with your chatbot in 5 years, will you feel some amount of personal responsibility or not? Always curious to hear you guys' perspective on that kind of stuff!

That's not really a fair question, especially given the audience here on HN. Most here have blood on their hands from the previous 25 years of tech-eats-the-world.

Well this is a new brand of whataboutism I haven’t seen before!

Did something bad? Better ablate yourself of the responsibility of holding people to account for making it _worse_! Acting this way just makes it seem more like you regret the blood on your hands because it has dirtied your shirt, and not because you’ve done something actually bad, otherwise you’d have at least some degree of guilt and reticence to see things get worse.

Post reply on HN