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

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#51

Post by twblalock »

canucklady wrote: post #37
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.

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…

I have not encouraged, upvoted, or defended this behavior in any way. Nor will I condemn it. I'm just telling you how the real world works.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#52

Post by twblalock »

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).

You can "condemn" it all you want, but if people can easily create gray goo we will all die, and no laws or social norms will save us.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#53

Post by kjeetgill »

KennyFromIT wrote: post #43
hhmc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By some original definition of the word they are necessarily false. Usage seems to have shifted to ‘small fact’ though

The common misunderstanding of the word `factoid` to mean "a small fact" is itself a factoid.

Oxford English Dictionary (via Google) gives:

Factoid

- a brief or trivial item of news or information - an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact

So both uses are reasonable?

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#54

Post by dqpb »

fuckstick wrote: post #46
dqpb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I listened to the whole thing and I found it very convincing. Eh? "Lex Fridman's" voice is shaky as fuck in the first 30 seconds and apparently he can't pronounce science now? - it says sci-in. (It continues to be flawed - he sounds sick when he says UC Berkeley). If I heard this knowing it was really him I would be concerned he was having a stroke. His voice is defective enough that it is actually irritating to li…

We must have different frames of reference. I'm surprised that anyone would scoff at this.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#57

Post by [deleted] »

dqpb wrote: post #54
fuckstick wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I listened to the whole thing and I found it very convincing. Eh? "Lex Fridman's" voice is shaky as fuck in the first 30 seconds and apparently he can't pronounce science now? - it says sci-in. (It continues to be flawed - he sounds sick when he says UC Berkeley). If I heard this knowing it was really him I would be concerned he was having a stroke. His voice is defective enough that it is actually irritating to li…

We must have different frames of reference. I'm surprised that anyone would scoff at this.

[deleted]

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#58

Post by Brian_K_White »

ballenf wrote: post #5

Can you imagine seeing the first photograph of a person? Like all you'd ever known was paintings and then one day someone shows you a glossy, pixel-perfect photograph of yourself. Photos didn't start perfect and neither is this black magic of recreating a person's speech patterns. Hard to imagine a world without photographs.

This is not a photograph. This is a drawing by someone who never saw the subject but has had the subject's appearance described to them, and the artist is not even a person to properly understand the descriptions, being presented as a photograph.

Re: Lex Fridman Interviews Richard Feynman

#59

Post by smt88 »

canucklady wrote: post #37
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.

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…

As I said in another comment, deepfakes benefit those who want to manipulate the public into believing someone did/said something that they didn't.

Do you really not see society-ending possibilities if every dictator or troll on earth had that power?

Sufficiently realistic deepfakes will erase trust in any and all recordings of people doing things, whether those things happened or not.

Post reply on HN