The scalability payoff is in personalization. E.g. I love "This week in microbiology", but I wish I could have more influence over the scientific papers discussed. What I'd love is a morning podcast that's exactly as long as I eat breakfast that talks about exactly the papers I'm reading and their interconnections.
Yes, but would you really love a morning podcast that's
* exactly as long as your breakfast consumption time
* talks about the papers you're reading, but...
* is as shallow as a puddle and as funny as being the person who steps in one?
Because that's what this is. The synthesized discussion combines all the insight of a breakfast radio host interviewing a guest on a specialized technical topic, and the banter as engaging as a technical specialist of some kind trying to host breakfast radio.
By the way, I'm not trying to be overly critical of the developers of this experiment, which is a great illustration of where we're currently at with a bunch of technologies. But it also very starkly illustrates its current limitations.
No, an echo chamber is a space without dissenting opinion.
Personalisation could be used to make an echo chamber, but to branch off the microbiology example above, personalisation of content could also be a summary of all the debate happening in the niche.
I think it would be quite a bit more interesting if you could converse with the model. The back and forth "is this paper about foo related to this other paper about bar?" would probably be a better way of getting at the interconnections. This should be doable now.
The thing that might hold it back is the latency in the experience. You could mask it with the AI equivalent of "ummm ..." to get to maybe 5-10s.
