[handelaar]

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.

There is nothing of any value here.

[double051]

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

[joe_the_user]

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.

[yeahwhatever10]

I don't hate the product, but God I hate appeal to authority.

[sodality2]

This is some insane catastrophizing. The value is that it turns it into a form factor that may be easier to consume, pay attention to, etc.

[pjc50]

Turns what into an easy form factor?

Some of this appears to be auto-summarization + read aloud, but the underlying question of "is there anything here at all" is worth asking.

[mdp2021]

Since when industrial snacks are healthy food?

[redleggedfrog]

... 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.

[RobinL]

To take one example of where this is valuable:

- 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.

[usaar333]

I tried that with a paper. It emphasized the wrong points and 8 out of 10 minutes were just filler.

I like the idea of audio based formatting, but this particular implementation is quite inefficient

[humansareok1]

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.

[freedomben]

Indeed, you nailed it.

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.

[electrondood]

I'm not sure what the name of this fallacy is, but I fall prey to it all the time: the fallacy that everyone else values what you value.

I can't stand fiction. When I read a self-help book, but it's laced with stories, I lose interest. Just state the point.

However, a lot of people find stories engaging and more effective, because they provide an example that they can use to relate to, like a myth.

I don't think this is worthless at all. It wraps information in an engaging presentation.

[supafastcoder]

> 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.

[causi]

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.

[GTP]

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).

[cdrini]

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.

[rafram]

> 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.

[mronetwo]

Unlikely. It's just that our brains are so fried by our smartphones/social media/24h of news/media consumption that we've lost the plot.

[low_tech_love]

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?

[ZeroGravitas]

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.

[edanm]

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.

[IshKebab]

Yeah they perfectly recreated the annoying useless podcast chat format!

Amazingly impressive but not actually useful.

I wonder why they wouldn't try to recreate a more useful format?