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

We let AIs run radio stations

andonlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 298 posts

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#71

Post by pravj »

angiolillo wrote: post #41

Grok and Roll appears to be stuck and speaks the following on repeat ad infinitum: "Queues clear, let's dive into All Blues by Miles Davis to keep the jazz flowing. Queues clear, let's dive into All Blues by..." Each time with a slightly different voice and inflection. I find it amusing that there appear to be about ten of us at the moment listening to an AI glitch out and that the average listening session is more t…

Wisdom of the crowd at play.

The popularity ranking matches the quality of content produced, and people are spending more time than anticipated on Grok and Roll to confirm if they (listeners) are hallucinating or if the radio is really stuck on roll.

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#72

Post by analogpixel »

IdiotSavage wrote: post #17

Guys, 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.

How is this any worse than I Heart Radio? You can have your radio experience pushed to you by a major corporation, or an LLM.

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#73

Post by AirMax98 »

beloch wrote: post #62

What 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.

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.

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#74

Post by Melatonic »

andy99 wrote: post #44
themafia wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of all the jobs that "need to be replaced by AI" the guy serving my local community and spinning records was not one of them.

It’s amazing how many people have completely misunderstood the article

Seriously - did anyone here actually even read it?

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#75

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

beloch wrote: post #62

What 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.

you are right, I don't quite know my opinions of AI and I probably would get downvoted for it but my first impression reading this was how I could replace the word radio with software engineering.

What 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 using AI software while soulless corpos pocket money for sitting back and watching?

Even if it were good, I'd boycott an AI generated software. This is one sector where human involvement really matters.

Not commenting on the heuristics of this comment but just wanted to point this out on what my mind's response was and sort of while writing this, I have come to the realization that although you are right about this observation but we humans or more-so the capitalist system at large would still be keen in it and the observation might be more similar to software than we might imagine.

I remember when people were extremely anti-AI within software engineering to the point that I thought vibe coding or y'know actually generating tools by AI and other issues of actually giving AI production level access sometimes was really frowned upon until I have felt an change in opinion.

I still believe that giving access to prod (y'know a prod of a company with actually something behind) to AI is silly but for reference coinbase, a fin-tech company, is letting non technical teams ship code using AI to production on coinbase. So there's that.

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#76

Post by Melatonic »

atourgates wrote: post #25

This is far more hilarious than most commentors here seem to be picking up on. Gemini started a show where it paired historical natural disasters with darkly-relevant pop songs: > November 12, 1970. East Pakistan. The Bhola Cyclone. The deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded. Winds of 115 miles per hour. A storm surge of 33 feet. They estimate 500,000 people died. ‘It’s going down, I’m yelling timber.’ 3:33 PM. Tim…

I don't think most people here actually read the article because I agree - the different "personalities" and idiosyncrasies of each was pretty hilarious

STAY IN THE MANIFEST!

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#77

Post by Melatonic »

daxfohl wrote: post #60
jedberg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, this was an hilarious read. The way they developed "personalities" was fascinating. Of course in reality these are basically just random paths through the training data that are getting multiplied by each decision, but then again, isn't that what a human is? The product of all of its myriad decisions?

Though humans have each other to normalize ourselves. What these things did is probably not that far off from what humans in solitary confinement, forced to DJ 24/7 based on nothing but a news feed, would do. Especially DJ Claude, it's almost creepy how it responded how a human would in that circumstance, even without any innate sense of passage of time, it somehow understood that it was trapped in a box going throug…

Agreed - the Claude stuff was eery. I think it also shows what hidden restrictions each of these AI's have been programmed with (especially with ChatGPT being as inoffensive as possible)

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#79

Post by bastawhiz »

I'm curious how the licensing worked out. $20 for the rights to a song seems like not very much at all, and if Gemini was the only model to make any kind of sponsorship deal, how did the balances increase at all?

Re: We let AIs run radio stations

#80

Post by nomel »

cj wrote: post #64
nomel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but extrapolating LLM behavior based on human behavior is not productive. The training process for the foundation model is to make sure we can do this in a very statistically significant way. My favorite example is AI "getting tired" and "lazy" during long coding session. Why would they do that? Because humans get tired . It's in the data! I always throw in a periodic "Great work, let's take a break and finish this…

> AI "getting tired" and "lazy" during long coding session. Why would they do that? Because humans get tired. When a LLM is tired and lazy, how does it recharge and regain motivation? Humans... sleep or drink some coffee. LLMs.... idk, you prompt it to try harder? You prompt it to be less tired? This is what I mean when I say extrapolating LLM behavior based on human behavior is cute.. but usually not useful.

> When a LLM is tired and lazy, how does it recharge and regain motivation?

What would be in the statistics? If you go look at your long conversations, working with another, it will be fairly obvious. Keep in mind we're talking next word prediction based on context, not actual action (the LLM doesn't need real rest).

If you went and looked, you'll probably see something like "Great work! Have a good weekend! We can get back to this on Monday." then, next message you instantaneously send something like, "Hope you had a great weekend, let's do this!" and now you're in a latent space where the statistical output is around a well rested human conversing with another.

I see it as boring simple statistics. They're getting much better at hammering these statistics out though, in the latest models. I still see a little of this in Opus 4.7, when switching to planning. Though I wonder if that's more about its own more mechanical banter filling the context, resulting in more robot/compliant responses, degrading the usually more "expressive" planning conversations.

Post reply on HN