Hacker News Reader

Comment by dilap | Hacker News Reader

I think it when it starts having a broad impact on the way we live, like the internet and smartphones did.

Last night the AI and I teamed up to write bedtime stories on demand and on the fly for whatever themes my daughter mused. I think about a billion families would enjoy an app that did that.

And yet people aren’t doing this so I guess something is still missing. Awareness? UX? Something else? All of the above? The company that figures it out might earn a lot.

Price. I have a dozen ideas that could be done using GPT-3. Most of them aren't financially viable, I'm not burning half my income to build an MVP.

See what is happening with StableDiffusion, a model was released opensource, performance in the same league as closed source, usable on consumer hardware and (non AI) techies start to modify it. The biggest steps/modifications are by specialists no doubt, yet still opensource, but others are happily glueing parts together to make something else. The key really seems to be access, an hosted API is rather hostile to innovation, using and especially experimenting is expensive, modification can only happen within whatever the API allows. For the tech to get bigger and more noticed faster more people need to be able to tinker with it.

The real reason LLMs are hard to sell is alignment issues. The models reflect our biases. As an app developer, are you willing to risk it? You app—using GPT-3—might output racist remarks and then you're in trouble.

Maybe so, but unless there are a billion families out there who are already privileged enough to have internet access and are willing to pay for such an app, I don't see it happening.

I do think there's a good chance this stuff will have that level of impact, I just don't think it has yet.

(Though I'm not convinced it will. If you wanted to be a skeptic, you could argue that we're already in a huge content glut; there's basically infinite content available for almost free. So does radically lower the cost matter that much?

(Maybe in low-level ways, like it'll increase the abilities of small indie studio to produce high-level content. But to your average consumer, maybe it's not noticable.)

> So does radically lower the cost matter that much?

It's not about lowering the cost, it's about generating content that fits your specific preferences in real time. Forget on demand streaming of off-the-shelf content, people will want on demand content generation.

And then, as is tradition, the next step after that is giving you content you did not even know you wanted. That can be perverse marketing, feeding you sensationalized stuff that keeps you hooked 24/7¹ but the better alternative is something that is tailored to your general tastes, genres, writing styles, etc. so that you receive the content that is best received by you at that particular moment (matching your mood, your goals, your style)

––––––––––

1. This image comes to mind... https://www.wallpaperflare.com/dystopian-cyberpunk-sad-virtu...

It's an interesting scenario. Sort of like a mega-tiktok.

Your image seems apropos; I'm reminded of David Foster Wallace, as well, with his whole obsession w/ entertaining ourselves to death...

Really?

Because my experience with reading bedtime stories to kids is that they want to hear the. same. story. every. night.

For us, it's more like an interest in the continuing adventures of existing beloved characters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com