- cross-posted to:
- mealtimevideos@lemmy.cafe
- videos@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- mealtimevideos@lemmy.cafe
- videos@lemmy.world
Maybe not that interesting for everyone here, but I found no better community for this.
Maybe not that interesting for everyone here, but I found no better community for this.
I feel like the title doesn’t match the content.
The video gives an elaborate description on their evaluation of “AI” and it’s influence on the Internet at large. And then they conclude with “we’ll continue like before” directly contradicting the title.
Feels disingenuous. And ironic after they talked about their extensive investments into fact checking.
You missed the entire point of the video.
The claims are simple:
in order to make this type of videos, they need to be able to reliable fact check
data on the internet is increasingly polluted by AI slop, making it harder to distinguish fact from slop
for now, they have no choice but to continue while being extra vigilant… but eventually, if things do not change, they will be unable to perform
It’s the exact same situation about climate change… we need to act now, most of us will suffer otherwise but for now we continue on living while trying to adjust where we can (recycling, reusing, less/no meat, etc) even if we know that will not be enough long term.
Also, presuming they are sincere and put in all that effort, they are competing with other sources that have no such discipline and they are able to flood the field and grab eyeballs faster than they could.
exactly, also explainedein the vid
Not the guy you’re answering to, but I kind of agree with him, the point is fuzzy and the title is clickbaity. With sucha title I expected they would present numbers and figures.
Killing in this case sounds like the content is becoming harder and harder to create, which they lay out the subjective case for, but that wouldn’t be exactly something they could use figures to present, since it’s so subjective.
The one point they might have been able to show with numbers would be the emergence of AI slop ‘infotainment animations’ diluting the audience, but that wasn’t exactly the biggest point of the video and it might be a bit early to be able to demonstrate statistically credible evidence on that one.
well, it may be a matter of context and tolerance here but I find the concept they are presenting is axiomatic and as such would not require any further explanation:
They use the internet to research their videos… the internet is getting more and more polluted with false narratives… ergo, it is becoming harder to research for their videos. Without good source, there are no videos.
If I tell you plants need water to exist but each season brings less and less rain year after year… would you say a title such as “drought is killing the plants” clickbaity?
I assumed they don’t do their research using random crap on “the internet”, but reliable experts, peer reviewed papers and such. No specific claims about topics, funding, time or anything. And again, no numbers, so hard to argue objectively.
Yes, that is what they claim. But I am sure you have seen how hard it is now to find something even if you know exactly what you are looking for. It’s not like there are 2 libraries online for anything you need, right? You start researching about topic A and read that Dr XYZ did a study on this so you look for that study… just to find out Dr XYZ does not and has never existed.
So you want a specific number as to how many bad sources they are now forcing to discard because they turned out to be AI slop?
To begin with. Time delta. Cost creep. Anything.
Those metrics aren’t any more trustworthy than their own subjective word anyway. If they wanted to say they took more time then they could delay at their whim anyway. If they said their production costs increased, then again, they could spend the money to fit the narrative. On those particular points objective evidence is so susceptible to being gamed that it isn’t really more valuable than their subjective reporting.
Numbers of subscribers/views could be a bit more informative, but then people inclined to disbelieve would claim it’s because of any number of other reasons not because of AI slop.
I’m not accusing them of lying, just being unclear.
it’s not that type of channel… they never do more than a percentage or a rate.
their thing is to explain concepts in a way a young audience can digest them
DeArrow shows the title as something like “why you can’t trust AI with facts”
Do you think if we pool every AI in the world it will be able to figure out the difference between its and it’s? Seems unlikely.
Awww is it the first youtube video you watched?
Did you come into a comment section and expected not to see any comments?
Do you take everything as it is, without criticizing anything?
Do that if you want. No need to be so dismissive without actually making your point. Which I assume is that clickbait is “normal”.
Yea the channel is known for being biased and just weird in general
It isn’t known for those things at all.
Yea, nah, it absolutely is. They often sneak in bad information and poorly interpreted data to fearmonger (see their nuclear power “educational” videos where they instill fear) and other such things. They’re just like some other science channels. Like veritasium, which shilled out for Waymo. Just because the animations are very very nice doesn’t mean you shouldn’t confirm the information they present, and quite often it’s wrong on purpose to butter up the right people. If you don’t believe me, that’s okay. They’re not dangerous like pseudoscience channels. Most things they present are good. I just hate that they mix in BS.
You’re using a lot of weasel words and zero sources for someone arguing we should all fact check things.
I’m not even saying your wrong, but your going to have to do a lot more than that to convince me that “they’re known for” everything you just said, because that sounds like you have a very specific beef with them that overshadows everything else they’ve ever done (in your estimation) and your projecting that as a universal truth, when really it’s not.
I respect your opinion, but there are certainly far more worse channels than there are better ones, and they’re known for being one of the better ones.
edit: If this is what you’re trying to say, I agree with you: https://lemy.lol/comment/21580850
That + entertainment over information quality. I’m not here to convince anybody, my goal was to make y’all think twice about just blindly trusting theor videos. They’re the Linus Tech Tips of the science channel world.
Right so you say everyone should source all their work but then claim very specific things about the channel and then refuse to provide sources.
Interesting.
But I guess as long as you’re not here to try and convince anyone that what you’re saying is true it’s okay for you to just say anything regardless of validity. That’s very political of you, well done.
The channel hat always been disingenuous. It’s not the first video they have where they develop a well written essay that has conclusions that make no sense with the information presented. It’s the theater of research without any of the substance. The editors just do whatever they want, under the expectations that the writing team will support their preconceived notion.
They’re an entertainment channel, not a science communication channel. They have said some awful, totally not fact supported stuff in the past.
Wow look at all of the evidence you’ve provided. It’s going to take me all night to go through it.
If you going to make claims like that you’re going to need to provide even a shred of evidence
Like?
Climate change whitewashing for corporations with awful conflicts of interest. Others have posted the links to the videos elsewhere in this comment section.
As far as science channels go, you’ve got SpaceTime for college students, Veritasium for high schoolers, and Kurzgesagt for newborn infants or maybe a smart dog. It’s probably at about the right level if you want to explain science to an Australian Shepherd.
c/iamverysmart
Veritasium was bought years ago. No editorial freedom. Never heard of SpaceTime. I have better sources for science than YouTube slop, thank you.
Given the fact that you don’t appear to know how to cite your sources I’m not convinced that you in fact do have better sources for science.