They definitely do hardware R&D there [including on major recent launches] and a lot of product assembly. They also advertise production-line automation software gigs periodically for the plant in Little Island (the lesser-known site on the east side of the city which is neither of the offices everyone here knows about).
So basically what you're all saying is how it's technically impressive. Okay.
It is also completely and utterly worthless -- an inefficient and slow method of receiving not-very-many words which were written by nobody at all.
The one and only point listening to a discussion about anything is that at least one of the speakers is someone who has an opinion that you may find interesting or refutable. There are no opinions here for you to engage with. There is no expertise here for you to learn from. There is no writing here. There are no people here.
This sentiment feels overly dismissive about the possibilities here. This is the first pass at a new user experience, and I find it already to be compelling to try for various subjects.
Andrej Karpathy has been tweeting about it positively, and I believe he has a good intuition about these kinds of technologies. https://twitter.com/karpathy
This sentiment feels overly dismissive about the possibilities here.
No, I see the gp as talking about the possibilities of this technology - it's possibility to waste someone's time. The problem, in a sense, isn't just that it's injecting simple content with "fluff" but that the fluff is formulaic. Listening to a human speak in awe struck tones about "magic" give the listener at least a sense that a real person was convinced by X. Listening to simulation of this, you lose the filter of the real person.
Of course, this is just the automated continuation of the existing standard of talk show hosts who gush over whatever is placed in front of them so it's just one more step down the general mediocratizaiton of the world, not a special step. But it still is a step in that direction.
This probably isn't really a good analogy. It's just a fact that for most people, a conversation is more engaging than an academic paper. It's easier to pay attention to it, and it's easier to retain the information in it.
This might be healthy food that tastes like a snack.
So let us say you could have effortful (as opposed to buttery-bread "no need to chew"), nutrient, and appetizing: if the snack is effortless (but for the bad spice) but with a hint of possibly no nutrients (when not possibly unhealthy), and tastes the-bad-way weird ("...like, OMG - I hmmmm was, like..."), where is the appetizing part?
If the "conversational form" (very good idea per se) has an implementation which would flow easily if not for the disturbing speech quirks, with doubts about the content quality: where can the interest be?
Conversational audio form is really not an "industrial snack". If I had the chance to listen to podcasts about any topic, I would do so much more often - uploading PDFs of academic papers, manpages, etc.
I personally appreciate the lighter introduction/discussion into a topic. That may be all it's good for, and that's okay. I'm not replacing my reading with this any time soon, precisely because of the problems you mention.
Indeed. But MREs, protein shakes, Huel etc. are also a product of industrialisation.
In this case, I could see potential value for a better iteration of this tech, making it a meal replacement shake rather than a candy bar.
There's too much interesting content for me to read it all, and I have a long commute. Right now I'm using that commute to learn German, and that is a good use of that time, but let's say I didn't need to because I hadn't moved country or I was already fluent: in this hypothetical, I'd gladly have a better AI than this(!) generate podcasts about the articles that I don't have time to read.
But the AI would need to be better than this one for that to be worthwhile — I just popped one of my own blog posts into it, and it was kinda OK-ish, but did make some stuff up. Now sure, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect was written with humans in mind, but that's a shared disappointment and not a reason to let this AI off that particular hook.
... insane catastrophizing." Nice unique phrase. Guessing you're not a LLM. ;^)
The thing that is being offered is of no interested to me, as are almost any AI generated content. I'm a human, and am interested in what humans do and say and think. AI content offends my sensibilities at every level. I dismiss it without even thinking twice. So all those people who do podcast, music, art, whatever, with AI, well, you lost me folks. I pay a lot of money for the things I like. AI ain't getting any of it, not out of spite (can't spite an AI, they're not human!) but on principle.
I will note this is slightly less an example of "AI generated" and more an example of "AI transformed". This takes existing, written by human documents or articles and transforms them into a podcast. Based on what you've written here, this shouldn't necessarily be in contradiction with your values, since you're still getting thoughts from other humans, and you can still pay money to the humans who made the original article, etc.
I'd go even further than "hold no value" and say it's actively detrimental on both the individual and society. We already have an avalanche of dehumanizing technology that isolates and placates us. We see the results of this with problems in mental health and socialization. This is a downward spiral as AI content will likely appeal to those who lack social skills as they don't have to cope with tricky vagaries of other humans - which is part of which makes us human and gives us social growth.
Even more catastrophizing. Do you get upset when you read the abstract from an academic paper? Or when you listen to a real podcast that does summarize a difficult topic in easier/shallower terms? Is it the fact that an AI summarized it the problem? Can you point to a real harm here, or will you just hand-wave, instead of seeing the reality of making information more available being a net positive?
Thank you, these are mostly extremely valid complaints. I hope with time these come to be inefficiencies that can be moved past (AI models turn into local-first energy efficient tools, becomes more intelligent at summarization). Right now though, wholeheartedly agree.
The last one seems to be irrelevant for this specific use case - the content is produced, it's put into an easier to digest format. No one thought sparknotes would kill books.
Well, I'm just curious why you think something like this has negative value - I _do_ care about the ideas but you are the one who expressed that sentiment.
1) humans produced a lot of content in good faith on the internet
2) the AI was trained on it and as a result produced a non-von-Neumann architecture that no one really understands, but which can reason about many things
3) even simply remixing the intelligible and artistic output of millions of humans in lots of nonlinear ways, directed by natural language, leads to amazing possibilities that obviate the need for humans to train anymore because by the time they do, it will all be commoditized.
4) doing it at scale means it can be personalized (also create unlimited amounts of fraudulent yet believable art / news / claims etc.) to spam the internet with fake information for short-term goals, some for LULz, others profit or control etc.
5) targeting certain goals, like reputation destruction of specific people or groups, seems like low hanging fruit and will probably proliferate in the next couple years, with no way to stop it
6) astroturfing all kinds of movements, with fake participants, is also a pretty easy goal with huge incentives — expect websites where 95% of the content and participants are fake trying to attract VC money or sell tokens, etc.
7) but ultimately, the real game changer is commoditizing everything you consider to be uniquely human and meaningful, including jokes, even eventually sex and intimacy. Visuals for heterosexual men, audio for heterosexual women (this is before the sexbots and emotionbots that learn everyone’s micro-preferences better than they know themselves, and can manipulate people at scale into being motivated to do all kinds of things and gently peer-pressure those who might resist).
8) For a few years they will console themselves with platitudes like “the AIs arent meant to replace, but enhance, centaurs of human + computer are better than a computer alone” until human in the loop will clearly be a liability and people will give up… the platitudes will become famous as epitomizing optimistic delusions as humans replaced themselves
Would probably be used for busy parents to rsise their kids at first, in a “set and and forget it” way, educating them etc. But eventually will be weaponized by corporations or whoever trains the models, to nudge everyone towards various things.
Even without AI, the software improves all the time through teams of humans sending autatic updates over-the-air. It can replace a few things you do… gradually then all at once. Driving. Teaching. Entertainment. Intimacy. And so on.
I think the most benign end-game is humans have built a zoo for themselves… everyone is disconnected from everyone by like 100 AIs, and can no longer change anything. The AIs are sort of herding or shepherding the humans into better lifestyles, and every need is satisfied by the AIs who know the micro-preferences of the humans and kids and pets etc.
But it will be too tempting for the corporations to put backdoors to coordinate things at scale, once humans rely on their AIs rather than other humans, a bit like in the movie “Eagle Eye”. But much more subtle. At that point most anything is possible.
- Take some dense research paper or other material that is unsuitable for listening to aloud
- Listen to it (via NotebookLLM) whilst commuting/washing up or whatever
This way you'll have a big headstart on what it's all about when you come to read the details.
I imagine in future we'll see a version of this where the listener can interject and ask questions too, that feels like a potentially very powerful way to learn.
Interesting! I tried it with a (famous, tbf) philosophers book and it did pretty well. Absolutely not optimized for speed, but that’s on purpose. Could you share what field/type of paper you tried? I’m not doubting you at all — I’m sure it still has many topics it fails to capture, mathematics probably being one of them.
Doesn't even mention the basics, like ethnic demographics of Fiji today. Confuses history as well (what happened in colonial times vs post independence)
There's definitely not nothing of value here. This could be a useful new medium. I however hate the tone of the two hosts. It sounds like two pompous millennials talking about things they don't really understand.
The ridiculous overuse of the word "like" is as nails on a chalkboard to me. It's bad enough hearing it from many people around me, the last thing I need is it to be part of "professional" broadcasting.
I'm super impressed with this, but that one flaw is a really big flaw to me.
I live in Idaho currently, but have lived in many different regions in the US at various points in the past (though, not California). It does seem particularly strong in California and increasingly in western Oregon, western Washington, southern Nevada, and northern Utah (which, probably not coincidentally, have been top destinations for people moving out of California over the last 10 to 20 years).
Out of curoisity, how long ago did you move to California from the UK? And is the "like" commonly used in the UK?
I moved ten years ago, so I couldn't tell you about "like" prevalence in the UK today - I think it was a lot less common than in California a decade ago.
I really want to like it more, it could be interesting to drop in a textbook and get a dedicated series of podcasts about each chapter for example but the tone is so off-putting that I can't listen for more than a few minutes. Its pure cringe.
> When I read a self-help book, but it's laced with stories, I lose interest. Just state the point.
The reason why these books are filled with stories that repeat the same point over and over again is because then the idea will typically stick in your head. But some people have better imagination then others and come up with stories themselves when they read about a novel idea.
It's just format-shifting content. Rather than reading an article, someone might prefer to have the content casually chit-chatted at them. Nothing wrong with that, and a handy function if you're into that sort of thing. I can see uses for it.
I often listen to podcasts when I go out for a walk. If this really works as advertised, it could be a chance to revise some material while I'm enjoying the weather (or, in this season, the rain... But you got my point).
This seems like a pretty disingenuous reading of the comments and misunderstanding of the feature. All your points are valid, but I just don't thing they apply here, because the generated podcast is based on a human-written article. It's not asking an AI to create a podcast from scratch -- in which case I think all your points would be entirely valid. It's transforming existing human-created content into a different medium. There _are_ opinions to engage with. There _is_ expertise to learn from. There _is_ writing. There _are_ people. These were all in the source content used to create the podcast.
> The one and only point listening to a discussion about anything is that at least one of the speakers is someone who has an opinion that you may find interesting or refutable.
No. Maybe that's true for you, but people enjoy learning in different ways, and some people learn best by listening to a discussion.
I don't doubt you're right about social media and smartphones rotting our attention spans. But also, peripatetic philosophy is ancient. I spend most of my day sitting. Whether its work, entertainment, or hobbies, most of these things have me sat in front of a screen. So its nice, and I do think it increases my retention, to be able to do something while walking or cycling instead of sitting.
so that's the cool part, I think, instead of wasting time on socmed and news cycle composting, waste time on this instead. I think this is the general direction all media is headed, regardless of whether one agrees with it or not. Feed it whatever you want and it will shuffle together a plot, just for you.
Assuming you are one of them, I’m curious about one thing (honest question, not meant to disrespect): does it not bother you at all to know that those voices do not belong to any human being? When I listen to a semi-adolescent girl’s voice explaining something with a lot of “like”s and an informal tone, the fact that I know this was AI-generated makes me feel disgusted in my stomach (I am serious, this is not supposed to sound edgy or anything). I feel like my mind is trying to actively imagine the human being behind that voice, at the same time that it knows there’s none at all. Like I’m being cheated?
I'm not - I think I learn better by reading. But I know a lot of people who do prefer discussions, and I thought that the comment I replied to came off as arrogant and dismissive of the idea that anyone else might learn differently.
I've listened to a few NotebookLM samples but haven't used it myself, so I can't really speak to how creepy it is in practice. Probably pretty creepy! (I don't think that the female voice in the samples sounds "semi-adolescent," though, for what it's worth - both of the voices just sound like millennial podcasters to me.)
Not the person you're responding to, but no, it doesn't really bother me at all. What does bother me is that I don't have confidence in the value of the output, where as if I listen to This American Life, or a podcast or audiobook from a trusted authority, I don't have to worry about that.
I feel like this is also exposing the same fundamental flaw with human created content of a similar nature.
Two attractive human "journalists" with nice speaking voices and fake rapport reading a script that was written for them is not really far off this.
I was about to say the only real benefit is that the AI voices won't start running for Congress on authoritarian lies or peddling anti-vax takes as the next step in their career, but thinking about it they probably already are being used for this already.
Yeah, don't even get me started on audiobook narrators. Sometimes these people read entire books of nonfiction that was written entirely by someone else.
This case was about Apple in particular and it is very important to understand that this has never at any point been the law in Ireland as it was understood at the time.
Apple was treated differently to all other companies -- those companies were subject to the laws at the time which allowed multijurisdictional shenanigans as described in the OP link. There was never any legal basis for Revenue's different level of enforcement for Apple alone.
Everyone in Ireland [and almost everyone else] seems to be under the impression that this is what just happened with the CJEU ruling last week. But it's not.
Ireland, since the mid-1980s, has been offering Apple (and ONLY Apple) a bespoke tax arrangement which is not only unlawful state aid under EU rules but also straight-up illegal under Irish law as well. This "deal" was never codified in primary or secondary legislation in Ireland. The government of famously-not-crooked-in-any-way Charlie Haughey did this deal under the table, and all subsequent administrations have been behaving like it was legal. It never was.
isset($var) will return false if you have deliberately set $var === NULL
Otherwise more or less fine?
The whole OP here is a longwinded way of observing that several built-in PHP functions don't know anything about types. You can't use switch() as it's usually documented either, for example, because that ignores types too.
There are ways around all these things, of course. PHP that doesn't suck is kind of the norm these days. Just stay the hell away from Wordpress
How can WordPress be so prominent and have so much money behind it and still have such garbage code? Are there giant companies still running PHP 4 server farms that need it to continue to be coded to 2003 standards? Is it some government op to ensure a good deal of the sites on the web are easily-hackable? Someone explain this to me.
This should be a lesson for everyone. Code quality doesn't matter, language doesn't matter, it only matters if people want your product. If you would look at the code quality of the most successful WordPress plugins you would be... uh, amazed? Compared to them WordPress' code quality is top notch. Yet, they probably bring in million/month from subscriptions. If you're curious see WpAllImport
Thankfully it's been a couple years since I had to touch a WordPress code base, but I remember being confused because I needed to define a route and couldn't figure out how to do so either in the code base or in documentation scattered about online. Eventually I realized that this was because WORDPRESS DOESN'T HAVE A ROUTER and you're supposed to just create .php files which are called and executed directly from the web server. True caveman smash-together-rocks shit.
This is not true. WordPress routes request in its own, admittedly shitty way, but it has a router. I don't remember where it is, but it exists. It parses rewrite rules and matches them against the request URI.
From there I'd see where his parents were in the 1911 census. If it's the same location, odds are high that's where he was born.
Exceptions are possible. To help rule them out, I'd research and build-out the extended family. In that day, siblings/cousins banded together; local migration shows up when viewing the lateral family.
Is it not possible that there really was a John Alfred Tinniswood living in 1921 but the man who now claims to be him in 2024 is actually someone else who stole the original's identity when he died unrecorded?
I mean, OK, but by the time it's called VAT in their universe they're already treating you as 'overseas' and your total payment processor fee is pushing 10% because "not in the US" apparently carries a 100% surcharge
In the context described (a private organisation holding messages which refer to you personally) this is unbelievably false.