←back to thread

Interview with gwern

(www.dwarkeshpatel.com)
308 points synthmeat | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
arthurofbabylon ◴[] No.42140565[source]
This was a tough listen, for two subtly similar reasons.

The voice was uncanny. Simply hard to listen to, despite being realistic. I mean precisely that: it is cognitively difficult to string together meaning from that voice. (I am adjacent to the field of audio production and frequently deal with human- and machine-produced audio. The problem this podcast has with this voice is not unique.) The tonality and meaning do not support each other (this will change as children grow up with these random-tonality voices).

The conversation is excessively verbose. Oftentimes a dearth of reason gets masked by a wide vocabulary. For some audience members I expect the effort to understand the words distracts from the relationship between the words (ie, the meaning), and so it just comes across as a mashup of smart-sounding words, and the host, guest, and show gets lauded for being so intelligent. Cut through the vocabulary and occasional subtle tsks and pshaws and “I-know-more-than-I-am-saying” and you uncover a lot of banter that just does not make good sense: it is not quite correct, or not complete in its reasoning. This unreasoned conversation is fine in its own right (after all, this is how most conversation unfolds, a series of partially reasoned stabs that might lead to something meaningful), but the masking with exotic vocabulary and style is misleading and unkind. Some of these “smart-sounding” snippets are actually just dressed up dumb snippets.

replies(2): >>42140719 #>>42141344 #
1. JohnBooty ◴[] No.42141344[source]

    The voice was uncanny. Simply hard to listen to, 
    despite being realistic. I mean precisely that: it 
    is cognitively difficult to string together meaning 
    from that voice.
What? According to the information under the linked video,

    In order to protect Gwern's anonymity, I proposed 
    interviewing him in person, and having my friend Chris 
    Painter voice over his words after. This amused him 
    enough that he agreed.
I'm not familiar with the SOTA in AI-generated voices, so I could very well be mistaken.

But it did not sound fake to me, and the linked source indicates that it's a human.

Perhaps it sounds uncanny to you because it's a human reading a transcript of a conversation.... and attempting to make it sound conversational, as if he's not reading a transcript?