Hacker News Reader

Comment by ancientworldnow | Hacker News Reader

There is no joy in this process.

The joy is where you rake in the money. At least, that's how content farming used to work.

That's not true. There's joy in making kids happy. Here's actual feedback from kids:

"Hi richardfeynman and Merry Christmas! Carissa enjoyed her story and decided after that she needs to submit another one She couldn’t tell a difference. My husband and I could tell it was different, but still pretty impressive how the AI works! We will share with friends this week!" "Thank you so much for the story of Anders and his goat Gizmo. We love Maked up Stories and listen to one every evening, so it really made Anders’s day to have his own story. We have shared it with family and friends."

Are you kidding? there's tons of joy. I have a backlog of hundreds of kids story requests and now instead of being able to satisfy one kid per day I can satisfy as many as I want. moreover, kids can't tell the difference and love the stories.

They're too young to articulate the difference caused by a lack of emotion in the storytelling; but as kids, they are still early enough in their developmental process that I imagine hearing massive amounts of spoken audio, which lacks emotional depth, will harm them. I'd be cautious.

On the one hand, there's clear empirical evidence from parents that this helps improve kids' imagination and storytelling ability, and on the other hand we have your pure conjecture that "spoken audio which lacks emotional depth" can harm kids. I'm not buying it, but even if it were true it's pretty clear by the rate of improvement in voice cloning that soon there will be more emotional depth in this form of audio.

From your other comment with the parent's feedback -

> She couldn’t tell a difference. My husband and I could tell it was different [...]

I wonder if the child will eventually be able to tell the difference, when the machine-generated audio is a large fraction of what they hear in their early years. Or if they just learn to consider that 'normal', and maybe model their own speech patterns after it.

Also, anecdotes from parents (is that what you're referring to by "clear empirical evidence"?) are not evidence.

Current literacy theory believes there is an education gap formed between pre-school age children that hear a lot of words vs. those that don’t get to hear as many.

https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/word-gap-speak-more...

Another issue is that chatgpt has no humor. It can't tell jokes.

ChatGPT was great in assisting me in coding (I ask about postgresql stuff). But I do noticed it sucks at humor too.

There's a saying that the best jokes are somewhat offensive if not very witty, and ChatGPT might be playing safe lol.

ChatGPT passes the kid Turing test!

> passes the kid Turing test

There exists an interpretation of that statement that makes it a tautology.

Edit: and/or makes it circular/symmetrical - "What is a "kid"" (a Turing test mis-labeller). A good AGI was required to be able to convince a panel - assuming an ideal panel, the usual simplification "employing" perfect agents in economic modelling -, and there now exist new means to conversely assess the panel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com