posted in Technology
YouTuber Hank Green Is Facing a Fan Revolt Over His AI Use
gizmodo.com/youtuber-hank-green-is-facing-a-fan-revolt-over-his-ai-use-2000793672
GizmodoYouTuber Hank Green Is Facing a Fan Revolt Over His AI UseHe says his loved ones don't think his LLM use has been "healthy."
Replying to @return2ozma@lemmy.world
I like Hank, and this is a shitty article.
That aside he should be facing a revolt.
Hes supposed to be a credible source, hes an educator, hes the modern day Bill Nye. It’s very hard to take anything he says as objective truth when his research and fact checking consists of asking an LLM. Considering hallucinations and straight up lies are not only common but not even unexpected for an LLM you can’t believe anything that comes from one nor can you believe anyone who uses one.
Replying to @the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world
Hes supposed to be a credible source, hes an educator, hes the modern day Bill Nye.
There are no credible sources on YouTube. He’s just a guy with a computer and a camera. Youtube is about selling you stuff, people need to accept that.
Replying to @SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
The beauty of YouTube is that the goals of the company are not necessarily the goals of the content creators.
I’ll take any chance I can get to shout out Nick Zentner. Hes a professor of Geology at Central Washington University and he has been posting full length lectures on YouTube for more than 15 years. He is a comprehensive expert in his field and regularly features experts in related fields to help discuss whatever topic he is on at the time.
I used to use his videos to fall asleep, but I have developed a genuine love of geology and vulcanology that I wouldn’t have known about otherwise.
Replying to @KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
A hyper rational take.
Replying to @KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
You can find some older, rare exceptions, but it is impossible to maintain integrity and fulfill the YouTube algorithms. People think YouTube content is credible because YouTube algorithms give you what you want to hear.
Replying to @SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
Great starting point for wasting time maybe.
Let me waste 5 minutes reading slop than another 20 min tying to figure out if its a hallucination or just not accurate. 25 minutes that could have been reading a credible accurate source…
Replying to @Crashumbc@lemmy.world
In the scenario, what pointed you towards said credible accurate source? Google?
Replying to @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
Google is a search engine, not a source.
Replying to @SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
what pointed you
Yes, that was implied.
Replying to @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
Not op, but a search engine is a better starting point than an LLM, because it is a predictable tool, fetching internet resources which can be evaluated on their merits.
The AI presents itself as the actual information.
I see too many people in my daily life saying “the ai summary said…” and it is worse than useless.
Replying to @sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
A page rank based search engine would still require a vetting of results.
Google is mostly AI currated results, it will push approved and sponsored souces.
Replying to @postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
Google is shit.