←back to thread

Interview with gwern

(www.dwarkeshpatel.com)
308 points synthmeat | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
1. dewey ◴[] No.42135232[source]
Interesting idea with the avatar, but I feel like just having a voice and some audio waves would be better than trying to create a talking avatar. Could just be my personal preference of not having a mental image of someone unknown I guess? Similar to reading a book after watching the movie adaptation.
replies(2): >>42135259 #>>42136103 #
2. djmips ◴[] No.42135259[source]
How about just listening to the interview then?
replies(1): >>42135351 #
3. dewey ◴[] No.42135351[source]
I'm aware of that possibility but I don't mind watching the other interviewer and I'm also not sure if there's something being shown (screenshots etc.) after the first few minutes I watched.

I know it's probably a "me problem" ;)

replies(2): >>42135980 #>>42141813 #
4. luke-stanley ◴[] No.42135980{3}[source]
It does make me wonder what easy way to do ML assisted shot / person detection and `blanking` is. I'm just gonna point out there is a nerd snipe danger here ;D

Although the avatar tool is probably not SOTA, I thought the 3D model was a really cool way to deal with interviewing Gwern, I am quite enjoying the current video.

5. michaelt ◴[] No.42136103[source]
It seemed weird to me too.

In my country, when TV series are interviewing anonymous people they use specific visual language - pixellated face, or facing away from the camera, or face clad in shadow.

Having an actor voice the words is normal. But having an actor showing the anonymous person's face is an... unusual choice.

replies(1): >>42137448 #
6. keiferski ◴[] No.42137448[source]
The voice was a real person’s, but the face/head was AI.
replies(1): >>42140314 #
7. dewey ◴[] No.42140314{3}[source]
No it was not the real persons voice, it says it was a voice actor in the video.
replies(1): >>42140723 #
8. keiferski ◴[] No.42140723{4}[source]
A real person’s, not the real person being interviewed.
replies(1): >>42141623 #
9. dewey ◴[] No.42141623{5}[source]
You are right, I didn’t realize it could mean both things. Thanks!