This is what most podcasts do though. The review of 'Alien' sounded like Armchair expert and The Big Picture all rolled into one. Lots of gushing there. Hard to find good movie critics. If I could get something like Video Archives for all my movies that would be cool. Interesting future if you could replicate Tarantino and Avary. In the end it could sound like and fool you, but there is now way it could put together all of the personal conversations Tarantino and Avary have had with big swaths of Hollywood.
I'm just amazed though how well they nailed the sound of it all. The back and forth, the layer of one speaking over another at the right time, each sounding like your average podcast host in that light style. But the content sucked.
That's just the NotebookLM prompt. It is theoretically possible to write a prompt which generates more critical podcasts.
However nobody wants to upload their resume to a podcast generator and hear "Gee that's a bad industry, kinda wasted years on your life there" or something like that.
I hate how patronising these things are too. I tell them to forget that and just provide factual short answers.
Wild to think we are at the final moments in human history when most art, writing, video, entertainment, speeches were created by humans. Soon the majority will be AI-created, and it will stay that way.
Not anymore wild than people flying, television, computers, etc. For all of human history, except for the last century, things like art were time consuming, difficult to spread, available to a select few and just altogether a different world. I would say that generative AI is in the same category as photography and digital art (e.g. photoshop).
I somewhat doubt that. In many cases, the humanity is the entire point. Racing is a great example. Both horses and cars are faster than humans and have been for a long time. We have horse races and car races. We still also have human races. They didn't get replaced. Fandom just split, though I'm sure a lot of people are entertained by all of them. People still go to see cover bands when the Chuck E. Cheese band playing over a karaoke track has been just as "good" for decades if all you care about is sounding like the real thing. We still watch human combat sports even though lions are better fighters and robots probably are, too.
People give the same example in chess that we still watch people playing chess.
However that is beside the point. In both race and chess we want to know/reward the best human. People don't listen to podcasts to reward anyone or to find the best podcaster. So listening to a random podcast that appeals to you is much easier than watching stockfish vs Alpha go. The things you are describing are activities undertaken by very few for a living and are very binary. Most things are not like that and are much more likely to be disrupted by LLM spam.
Generative AI "art" is bad enough, but generative AI art criticism just feels nonsensical to me. An AI can't experience a work of art or have thoughts about it. It is just imitating someone who can. What is the point of that?
Definitely too good! The only way I can tell they're AIs is they don't pause or hesitate in their banter. Their ability to talk without thinking is uncanny.
Ok, so on further thought I think I can tell that they're AI now. But it's subtle. The pace of the conversation is just a bit too quick for natural human speech. They're talking about history but the female voice especially, is very quick to respond with points as soon as the male voice is finished. It's clear that the AI doesn't factor in the time it takes for someone to think momentarily and formulate a thought.
It's not so much the speed of the speech itself. The speech sounds natural and there are natural sounding inflections. But the gap between the speakers is almost nonexistent. It's quite exhausting to listen to because your own brain is trying to think about the content but there's no time to do it in parallel with the hosts, since they're not actually thinking.
the voice synthesis is decent but that's about it. despite some phrasing intended to seem banter-like, its also obviously not humans talking. i tapped out at one minute of the in bruges discussion, which was completely idiotic. they managed to pronounce bruges correctly once in that minute.
I don't think the technology in its current form is useful for reviews.
I just gushes about everything.
I can't imagine it thoughtfully critiquing things.
This is what most podcasts do though. The review of 'Alien' sounded like Armchair expert and The Big Picture all rolled into one. Lots of gushing there. Hard to find good movie critics. If I could get something like Video Archives for all my movies that would be cool. Interesting future if you could replicate Tarantino and Avary. In the end it could sound like and fool you, but there is now way it could put together all of the personal conversations Tarantino and Avary have had with big swaths of Hollywood.
I'm just amazed though how well they nailed the sound of it all. The back and forth, the layer of one speaking over another at the right time, each sounding like your average podcast host in that light style. But the content sucked.
That's just the NotebookLM prompt. It is theoretically possible to write a prompt which generates more critical podcasts.
However nobody wants to upload their resume to a podcast generator and hear "Gee that's a bad industry, kinda wasted years on your life there" or something like that.
I hate how patronising these things are too. I tell them to forget that and just provide factual short answers.
Yeah but this can be absolutely hilarious
Eg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y52g8kS-3mM
[dead]
I hate that podcast spam is being industrialized now. Makes me doubt if I should continue with Xecast.
I've listened to a few NotebookLM podcasts and I've had my fill.
Meanwhile I have dozens of human generated podcast subscriptions and even pay for some.
Hopefully that gives you an idea of the value seen in good human-curated content specific to interests.
Wild to think we are at the final moments in human history when most art, writing, video, entertainment, speeches were created by humans. Soon the majority will be AI-created, and it will stay that way.
Not anymore wild than people flying, television, computers, etc. For all of human history, except for the last century, things like art were time consuming, difficult to spread, available to a select few and just altogether a different world. I would say that generative AI is in the same category as photography and digital art (e.g. photoshop).
I somewhat doubt that. In many cases, the humanity is the entire point. Racing is a great example. Both horses and cars are faster than humans and have been for a long time. We have horse races and car races. We still also have human races. They didn't get replaced. Fandom just split, though I'm sure a lot of people are entertained by all of them. People still go to see cover bands when the Chuck E. Cheese band playing over a karaoke track has been just as "good" for decades if all you care about is sounding like the real thing. We still watch human combat sports even though lions are better fighters and robots probably are, too.
People give the same example in chess that we still watch people playing chess.
However that is beside the point. In both race and chess we want to know/reward the best human. People don't listen to podcasts to reward anyone or to find the best podcaster. So listening to a random podcast that appeals to you is much easier than watching stockfish vs Alpha go. The things you are describing are activities undertaken by very few for a living and are very binary. Most things are not like that and are much more likely to be disrupted by LLM spam.
Eh it depends entirely on what people enjoy. If AI makes genuinely good entertaining content, it will make human content relatively niche
The first episode I clicked on (it was for In Bruges) refered to the film as "The play".
Glad to see it's ready for production!
Generative AI "art" is bad enough, but generative AI art criticism just feels nonsensical to me. An AI can't experience a work of art or have thoughts about it. It is just imitating someone who can. What is the point of that?
I clicked on Gladiator.
Is this really all AI???? This whole Gladiator Podcast?
I can't tell, it is totally believable.
Really, this is too good, can this be confirmed if it is AI or not?
Look up google notebooklm. 100% ai. It's great, ive used it to learn some complex topics I couldn't get my head around.
But after listening to a good 10 hours of it, I'm seeing the equivalent of ai slop and repetitive patterns in all of them :(
Definitely too good! The only way I can tell they're AIs is they don't pause or hesitate in their banter. Their ability to talk without thinking is uncanny.
And they don't interrupt each other
Yes its notebooklm.
I'm not seeing any voice options on NotebookLM.
Did notebooklm produce the text, and then they had real people read it out loud?
You upload a document then click the Generate Podcast button.
So all text and voices? An AI is doing both sides of conversation, just off the cuff from reading the script?
This is amazing.
Ok, so on further thought I think I can tell that they're AI now. But it's subtle. The pace of the conversation is just a bit too quick for natural human speech. They're talking about history but the female voice especially, is very quick to respond with points as soon as the male voice is finished. It's clear that the AI doesn't factor in the time it takes for someone to think momentarily and formulate a thought.
Funny that it is too smooth, quick, and adding a pause might be more realistic.
But also, some people talk fast.
They'd have to add some random pausing.
It's not so much the speed of the speech itself. The speech sounds natural and there are natural sounding inflections. But the gap between the speakers is almost nonexistent. It's quite exhausting to listen to because your own brain is trying to think about the content but there's no time to do it in parallel with the hosts, since they're not actually thinking.
yea. everything. try it out (point it at a website or something)
Yeah I have a hard time believing this. Even OpenAI's voices don't sound this natural with the pauses in the speech.
Maybe because the OpenAI App where you talk to it is responding in Realtime.
But the NotebookLM is like a recorded pod-cast, so it can think about it before laying down a track?
[dead]
the voice synthesis is decent but that's about it. despite some phrasing intended to seem banter-like, its also obviously not humans talking. i tapped out at one minute of the in bruges discussion, which was completely idiotic. they managed to pronounce bruges correctly once in that minute.