- cross-posted to:
- popularculture@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- popularculture@hexbear.net
You must log in or # to comment.
I don’t know about a “revolt”, but it sure is disappointing.
I like the guy, and most of what he does. I also like, contrary to some, that he usually keep quiet on some controversial topics. Well, I liked that; it seems that he wasn’t just “staying quiet”, unfortunately.
And, the worst part is just that he, as we know him (remember, parasocial stuff and so on), should have been on the side of people that “know better”. I don’t understand how you can be that curious of a person, and not seeing the issues here. I understand trying the tools, to see what it’s about and what it can actually do; in a sort of experimentation kind of way. I would even understand (but not condone) regularly using them in some ways, once you find something that you can confidently say “it works well enough”.
This, however, is not it. And maybe I’m putting him on a sort of pedestal when I say he should have known better, but that’s how I feel it. There’s a large list of things LLM are known to not be reliable for: searching anything beyond surface informations, properly summarizing actually complex subjects, picking out what’s pertinent and what isn’t, being consistent, not having blind side, and being truthful (assuming we can decide what truthful means in the first place). All of this is intrinsic to the technology at hand. And while some people argument that “humans are imperfect too”, the difference is that humans can spot their mistakes.
And yet, here we are; one of the most prominent science communicator, heavily leaning on this to start his researches, undoubtedly being led astray on some topics by hallucination, missing some big issues on others because the models simply didn’t get something out this time (for whatever reasons), getting very heavy confirmation bias (because of course at some point you ask a prompt that’s oriented, and the LLM will oblige). And recently, a few things he kept saying, like, we’re needing more code… sounded silly. In fact, most of the time I hear something in a field I’m reasonably knowledgeable about, I find things that I don’t really agree with.
That’s the part that worries me about this. Not that he used large, corporate LLMs “responsibly” (assuming that’s a thing one can do, which I’m not convinced of). But that he muddled the image of a reliable source (and we have to decide, at some point, that this or that source is reliable or not) with lots of approximations wrapped in a pretty ribbon. And now, the little things I was slightly weirded out in his videos are taking way more space in my mind, and I’m starting to doubt topics I’m absolutely not knowledgeable about that he’s talked about, too, because that’s just how trust works.
At the end of the day, reliable people come and goes, but the “disclosure” sure sounded like he didn’t actually grasp the issues, only barely that there might have been issues.
That’s pretty disappointing, watched his content a ton years ago. I feel like Ai has that reverse Midas touch.
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.
I don’t know about going that far - LLMs can be a great starting point …. As long as you click through to the sources rather than blindly accept
Then you can also just as well skip that extra step and just do it yourself
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.
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…
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.
A polemic article that personally insults Hank Green instead of laying out a case. Brain melting AI psychosis indeed.
Thanks, saves time to not read it.
christ this comment section is unhinged
People need to chill the fuck out
Don’t tell me what to do 👺
it’s more fun to flip out over random harmless bullshit than stuff that actually matters though.
How DARE you!
I‘m a little surprised how easy Lemmy goes on a millionaire Youtuber who refuses to take actual responsibility of his actions. Mind you, there are worse things than producing slob but people really believed in that guy. And all he offers is a non-apology first where he stated that he doesn‘t really remember. Followed by saying AI psychosis made him do it. Just be an adult, man. That‘s all I‘m asking.
AI psychosis is a real thing. For all that AI is really terrible at (ie most things CEOs want to replace real people for), it is excellent at feeding you what you want to hear in every situation. Especially the ones where a real person would push back on you for your own good.
Is he.
Alright, so he got addicted to what felt like an easy source of knowledge. Can happen to anyone.
I guess I’m just tired of finding things to be upset about. I’ve lived more than five decades and it’s been outrage after outrage after outrage.
I’m tired, boss.
He’s admitted there was a problem and it got out of hand. If he changes, what’s the huge deal going forward?
We need social safety nets. We need universal health care. We need to kick fascists out of our government. And sure, we need to fix smaller problems, but jesus christ does every last thing have to be drama?
This is an issue I’m seeing more and more of. People are demanding that others be perfect at all times. We all fuck up and make mistakes. If we write off everyone we’ve ever disagreed with as irredeemably bad, then we’re telling people there’s no point in growing and changing.
When I was a kid in the early 90s in Texas, I thought homosexuality was immoral. I was wrong and I’ve spent the last 30 years preaching for inclusion and tolerance. And that’s the story for most people my age. In the 90s, a Democratic President banned openly gay people from being in the military.
If we want to change society, we have to invite others to our side with open arms, not condemn them.
People demand others be perfect so they can live vicariously through them while their own life is a miserable mess. They refuse to have any form of introspective and self acknowledgement of themselves to make their own lives better, so they need others around them to be perfect, even if those others is a para-social relationship with a Youtuber.
It depends what you define as drama.
I would say this is just about him breaking his community’s trust in him, and people let him know that. So now he’ll need to work to earn it back.
It isn’t really drama, but I can understand why people would feel a bit betrayed when they find out this person, who presents themselves as a science communicator, was heavily using a machine that is well known for hallucinations and spreading misinformation.
Additionally, Hank himself has said he is deeply concerned about the effects of AI on the climate crisis, the consolidation of economic power, and the way it was trained. Him heavily using it can makes it feel as though he doesn’t care about that stuff as much as it initially appeared. And given his community includes a lot of people heavily worried about the climate crisis, consolidation of economic power, and the theft of artists’ work, I think them being angry at him is understandable and expected.
Of course, hopefully he now steps back and reflects on this, and then comes back better. But that couldn’t happen without someone calling him on it first.
This post deserves more visibility.
Yeah I’m with you. I’m disappointed, but everyone will disappoint you in some way some times. Hell I’m disappointed in myself plenty of the time.
I agree, we try our best, but we’ve got to focus on the truly existential issues.
No no I want this one guy to be ahistorically flawless please. That is more important than any major issue like fascist revival movements and/or the climate crisis /s
Preach.
We need tolerance. Our society has become so dictatorial, even the most left leaning and liberal ones, we simply cannot tolerate anything we don’t agree with.
Everyone wants to make their own perfect universe where everybody says and does one thing. We should accept each other’s mistakes and faults, and live in more harmony.
Yeah, I feel the response has gotten way out of hand. Sure, I’m not happy about it. But I have some faith Hank will actually reflect on the situation.
he probably needs to take a break from uploading and wait a while.
Taking breaks is not what creators do anymore after a backlash as it kills the channel. He will keep posting stuff. Maybe even ride the anti AI wagon for engagement. He‘s a content creator through and through.
Apparently, that’s become less of an issue lately, at least on YouTube. I follow several creators that have started taking breaks for various reasons and the ones that are open about analytics don’t see a drop from it anymore.
Hate is an easy way to engage users, that is why most news channels use it as a hook when formatting articles.
I’m tired of it too.
5 decade club reporting 🫡 and I’m tired too.
“If it bleeds, it leads.” Drama leads to clicks, clicks lead to advertising, advertising = money. Same ol’ story, its just super easy now with the internet.
Also an old.
The outrage machine has never been anything but a slow drip of poison to keep us too overwhelmed/afraid to see what the oligarch class is doing to us.
Now it’s a fire hose.
I’m glad I dont know who he is and I will continue to not know him.
These days it seems like the internet is more pleasant the less influencers you know, and most aren’t worth knowing any further about.
I think the past where people’s awareness of public figures was much more distant was a healthier time. Like knowing the famous athlete or actor, but nothing further about their lives and not feeling like “you know them” because they called our your username or liked your comment and not being able to send them a direct message.
He and his brother created tons of online free science material that was used by several high schools apparently. I found him post all that, but it’s understandable that a lot of people have leeway with him, given that he was a big helper in so many places, and that he got cancer.
I mean, look how hostile Lemmy usually is and how tactful they are being with him, he definitely has built some reputation of being a good guy.
You’re right that most influencers aren’t worth knowing any further, but Hank is one of the exceptions. I wouldn’t even call him an influencer honestly, that’s way WAY too generic of a term for what he’s done. His excitement for knowledge and learning, and spreading the things he learns, has helped a generation with thinking skills and getting them interested in the sciences.
I can understand why this technology would be particularly addicting to hank.
His whole persona is answering questions like “what color flower do bees like the most” with the kind of enthusiasm that shows his curiosity and deep passion for science. So a machine where you can put in those sorts of questions and get an almost instant answer would be very addicting.
Only they’re not “answers”. AI does not provide information, it tells you what you want to hear. It even makes up fake scientific papers as “references”. So you think your info is backed up by peer reviewed sources. Nope!
One of my favorite economics bloggers for decades started sourcing his information with LLMs. He was such a bright guy. 😭
The better models absolutely will cite real scientific papers that are relevant to your discussion. It doesn’t hallucinate as a matter of course, it can hallucinate some of the time. You can’t trust what it gives you 100%, you have to verify it. But it very often gives useful answers and information.
It even makes up fake scientific papers as “references”
Broski, it’s not early 2023 anymore. Thinking models with internet access have been able to provide public sources just for over a year now. Technology evolves; shocking, I know…
ok, but they will give you a different answer to a question a day later if you delete previous prompts.
They do far better today than they did three years ago, but they still get stuff wrong constantly. I’ve had it give me the source for claims, and the source says the exact opposite of what it claimed. This isn’t a quantized to hell model running on my own hardware, but Opus from Claude.
My go to is to get people to ask it something they know a lot about, and see how bad inaccurate it is. If it gets something you know about so wrong, how wrong is it for everything else?
That’s just not true.
But when I get fixated on something, I want the correct answer. I’d hate to learn the wrong answer and repeat it to someone - I’ve done that before and I hate it. That’s why I avoid AI on principle. I want the right answer and AI won’t give that to me about things I know about so I won’t trust it on things I don’t know about.
You’re immune to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect!
You should avoid social media. You aren’t immune to wrong answers here either. You can just read it from another person and carry it with you. Best get offline!
Perfect example, wrong answer. Stay on the Fediverse, at least until Eternal September gets here.
This is the thing about LLMs and their users I genuinely don’t get. Like, objectively, being able to input plain speech into a computer and get an almost immediate, detailed, 95% accurate answer is incredible. Genuine technological marvel.
But 95% accuracy is functionally useless for all but the most basic, unimportant tasks. Outside of a coding context (a big exception, to be clear), are people really satisfied with that?
Let’s be honest, most sources online are not 100% accurate. Even before LLMs, find any random article about something you’re an expert in, and there was a good chance you’d spot some inaccuracies.
For me personally, I would rate AI accuracy at about 75%. And for some of my use cases, that’s a pretty decent starting point. Things with no consequences, like trying to quickly find the relevant console command for the game I’m playing. I can get instant feedback on whether it gave me correct info, and if not then I hit Google.
I would never trust AI, at least in its current state, to tell me the truth for anything of consequence.
Let’s be honest, most sources online are not 100% accurate.
Most scientific reviews cite papers in which only the title was read, and often the titles are not justified in the papers.
The majority of human history at all levels of science, philosophy, and mathematics. The best you could ever hope for was 95%. Hell you were lucky to break 90% accuracy.
Because the only people you could ask questions was the people in the room with you right then and there or the people you could actively physically go ask.
If you were extremely lucky you could write to someone who MIGHT know more. Or may there’s a book about it that someone knows exists.
95% can and frequently is very much over kill for almost everything anyone will need for their day to day life for random trivia or even most important work.
Very few fields need more than that, and few still is it a matter of life or death.
The part that people fuck up is not being open to learning more and being corrected.
If you can confirm it, it doesn’t matter what percentage is correct.
When solving computer problems, using an LLM to guide you to the correct answer doesn’t even need 95% accuracy. Every step it gives you have to execute manually, so if something is hallucinated you will notice really quickly. And if by the end your problem is solved, then all the hallucinations didn’t matter.
You could do just as well googling Stack Overflow back when Google wasn’t shit.
But now both SO and Google are shit…
For what he’s trying to do, it’s not even a horrible use-case. But as someone is a ready to go to the mat on fact checking, he’s definitely not anywhere near arduous enough about it.
He’s not treating it like aunt marge. You wouldn’t make a tv show around finding out truth, then go ask your aunt Marge and not follow up on her answers.
AI for general information gives you approximate directions at best, maybe you got a wikipedia page and maybe you’re reading 297 regurgitations of some asshole that didn’t know what the fuck he was talking about on reddit who got reposted over and over.
The best way I’ve seen it put is that ai is the perfected form of the wisdom of the masses. It’s 90% right 90% of the time. But the most important part is the last 10%.
90% is good enough for most things in your day to day life that have no consequences. But it’s like people have forgotten what it was like before smart phones.
Back when your best chance of a good answer was asking who ever was in hear shot if they knew and just accepting that as good enough. You never treated it as fact just as the best answer your going to get at the moment.
For anything important you would go to the damn library.
It’s 90% right 90% of the time. But the most important part is the last 10%.
No LLM model system card claims such high rate as 90%. Fable claims in its system card, what, 40% hallucination rate?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.10791 yep (no Fable score here)
What’s scary to me is that Hank Green is a rationale, intelligent person with time, money, resources, etc. Everything someone could want to be successful at their passion. And in this case, the passion is literally explaining science. If his own family has to have an intervention on his AI use (which it seems like they did?) after he denied reciting AI prompts on video despite being caught red-handed (which it seems like he did?) what chance do normie script kiddy vibe coders have? Is this the future? Addicts with rotting brains and AI psychosis leading the planet to destruction?
The allure of outsourcing your mental load to a chat bot designed to tell you exactly what you want to hear is too much. Everyone’s getting high off their own supply.
Those who are the most vulnerable to fall for the cult are a) those who have no safeguards or experience and thus don’t see the signs that it is a cult, and b) those who see the signs and know for a fact it is a cult, but think themselves they can outsmart the cult.
His overconfidence is the reason he is leaning so hard into AI. Because he thinks himself knowledgeable and smart enough to always know better than the AI slop. He is the perfect mark to fall for it.
rational*
It must feel godlike to manifest your will simply by speaking it. I can understand why that would addict people. This is exactly why they are pushing it so hard - they know it has this effect, people will demand it, they will fight for it. They will give over their enterprise and their personal lives to it, the way a drug or gambling addict gives over everything they have to it.
With that kind of impact - especially early on, before people realize they’ve been taken - they can build enough momentum to corner all compute.
No longer can we gather or organize without our names attached, without our intent scanned and analyzed, our location tracked, or our wallets closed. We will have to drink our verification cans, and we will have to be nice to Trump, or else they will see what you wrote on your iPad Cloud or your Google Pixel Light and then they will debank you, like waking up from the Matrix. “Go woke and go broke” was always a premonition about control.
I keep those power fantasies to my brain because I can tell the difference between a daydream and reality. I don’t care what AI could make me feel, I am never going to use it for anything if I’m aware of it.
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better
We’ve been saying that for decades. When does it get better?
It doesn’t
Well you see it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
When gen AI hits a job market that doesn’t exist thanks to AI, I wonder what’s going to happen.
IMO we are still quite a long way off from it, but if/when it does become prevalent it will depend on how fast the greedy capitalists deploy it. If they do it fast enough there will be too many displaced with little to lose, which will lead to revolution.
deleted by creator
People really need to stop putting condescending misogynistic white cis hetero dudes who talk confidently on the internet on a pedestal. This shit happens like, every other week.
The whole knitting saga showed that Hank Green knows nothing about the world but he’s ready to confidently spew his very wrong personal notions as facts.
Because in the end, that’s the biggest problem. He always talks with over confident authority. Sure, he puts the whole, this is just my opinion as it exist in my brain, spiel. But hidden as a footnote to the end notes. He acts the part of the know it all dunce. His content is so off putting when you even tangentially know a bit about the topic he is talking about. It highlights all his biases and misinformed opinions and how he enjoys showcasing them as scientific facts.
Then there was that time he made a video with harmful information about trans people and completely wrong facts about HRT. Seriously, about AI is not the first time he’s been a menace.
EDIT: If you disagree with me but want to know more, here’s a video from someone from the knitting community that articulates my gripes with the Green’s brand of slop better than I can in the limited space of a Lemmy comment.
Here there’s a commentary about the whole HRT misinformation problem.
Him being a cis het white guy is not relevant here apart from general privileges that come with that. Unless you are saying that one with those attributes should automatically be disregarded or disqualified from public participation, or treated as lesser in matters of science, history, current events, etc. That is not a stance I can support. Equality means equality for all. That does mean that privilege should be recognized and often worked against in the name of equity. But cis het white men can still have a seat at the table of public discourse just like everyone else.
If you have a problem with Hank, the things he says or has said, that is fine. Criticism of ideas is great and necessary. Criticizing the societal privilege that he possesses for some inherent traits or his fame and money is also great and necessary too. But reducing an individual to some set of inherent traits outside of their control and criticizing those traits instead of their words and actions is just prejudice.
Edit: Also, I’m interested in what he said about trans people and HRT that you found objectionable. Same for the misogyny. Can you share a bit about that? And maybe a link to the relevant videos? I personally haven’t seen him speak about trans issues in any real detail. And everything that I have seen him say in regards to women and trans people has been generally positive. I’m curious what I may have missed.
He made a video describing hrt and saying it was safer to take testosterone blockers without taking estrogen for mtf trans adults. Which is established in medical science as a sure way to get osteoporosis.
He also claimed that knitting is a female hobby of old grandmas that had no impact in technological development of civilization. Both videos caused an online uproar and have since been delisted.
My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default. This makes him particularly dangerous when he speaks of things he knows nothing of, or was just lectured about by an LLM, as if he is the level headed rational voice. When, more often than not, he isn’t. It is when he gets burned that he starts really avoiding topics, which is commendable at least. This is why he carefully avoids touching Palestine-Israel when talking about geopolitics (while also generally supporting a pro US neoliberal stance) or avoids talking about trans people anymore. He did a video on weaving and semi tried to apologize for the knitting thing, but unsuccessfully, since he glorified weaving as a male world of tech advancement unlike knitting.
Regarding the knitting thing, I’ll take your word that he once said something to that nature (I never saw that one, so IDK) but just a few months ago he went on a deep dive into textiles and did interviews with subject matter experts about their deep importance to history, technology, and modern life. I thought it was very cool and insightful.
It sounds to me like he made a mistake, assumed he knew more than he did, got and (more importantly) was receptive to the critical feedback from his audience, and decided to dedicate time to correcting his misunderstanding. I’m inclined to give grace to someone for that.
Again, I didn’t see the comments on HRT either, and I don’t much about know the specific studies regarding health outcomes with different regimens. I will take your word for it on both. I will go so far as to say that he shouldn’t speak on specifics regarding health that he is only passingly familiar with, and that is on him. But, I don’t think that what you described was, in any way, critical of trans people. And a mistaken opinion based on limited knowledge in an area you do not claim to be an expert in is not really all that unforgivable, especially when you voluntarily take that misinformation down to prevent further spread once you’ve been corrected. Plenty of people have plenty of opinions about things they don’t fully understand, and you don’t always know what you don’t know. From what I have seen of him, I would hope that he later highlighted his mistake and corrected it, along with removing the video. I don’t know that he did, but I have seen him do similar before. I really can’t expect that much else from a YouTuber.
My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default.
I don’t think his cis het white male status is what gives him an air of authority on the matter. For one thing, not that it matters, but he has made clear that he is not hetero, but bi, even though he is married to a woman. But regardless, if his authority comes from anywhere, it is that he has spent decades in various forms of science education, provides these resources for free as a non-profit, and loves to do and share research into a wide variety of topics, and do interviews with experts in niche fields to spread knowledge. He has experience and proven dedication to science education. There is nothing about that that has to do with his race, orientation, sex, or gender identity. In fact, the science education channel he created and co-hosts, Scishow, also has several other hosts that are of various races, genders, orientations, etc. He is using his privilege to platform other groups in the science space, actively pushing against the default status you are concerned about.
Again, you are absolutely free to feel however you feel about him, and criticize his ideas, his mistakes, the risky overconfidence you perceive, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that speaking on health issues regarding trans health in particular without a firm expertise or expert source at minimum is a bad idea, and it is potentially grossly negligent to give health advice in that or any area you do not fully understand when you have the kind of platform and perceived authority he does. But I do think that he is of good character, does actively try to help, and willingly admits and corrects his mistakes to the best of his abilities. And so I really can’t agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse.
It sounds like your main gripe would be that he speaks before he had certainty, and his platform thus lends credence to his words, right or wrong. That is a very fair critique. We also need to remember that he is a flawed human being like the rest of us, and with a curious mind, loves to learn and share what he has learned. If you put no more stock into his words than that, as one should, then he is harmless. He should be mindful that he’s going to be treated with more trust than most and should honor that trust with as much credibility as possible. But also no one is perfect.
can’t agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse
I never said so much. I said he has a problem with speaking confidently without double checking himself because of the typical attitude that is socially taught to white cishet men. Which the whole AI thing has clearly highlighted. Again, I don’t dislike him as a person, I don’t think he is bad, I don’t think anyone is purely good or bad. But I think that, though commendable to use his privilege and status to platform diversity, also requires a modicum of caution before speaking. Science communications is one of, if not the hardest, topics of communication because of the great potential for harm if misinformation is given authority. Apologizing and changing to do better is fine, but when it happens over and over, it starts to highlight a pattern of carelessness and lack of impulse control. Science communication requires due diligence and deep nuance. On the contrary, he seems to have been aiming for a neck breaking pace of content creation, accelerating more and more as of late. When you rush, you make more mistakes, you risk doing harm.
If you want to know more, here’s a video from someone from the knitting community that articulates my gripes with the Green’s brand of slop better than I can in the limited space of a Lemmy comment.
Here there’s a commentary about the whole HRT misinformation problem. I had also forgotten the whole «it’s misogynistic for trans women to claim they experience mood swings», it’s so erasing of personal experiences of all trans persons in general. Anyways, my point is that the Green’s are lousy science communicators, and I do think that race, gender and sexual orientation play at least a small part in that. They’re far from the first science channel to fall for that trap.
Could you please fill out this survey before I react to your comment. Thanks.
Age:
Gender:
Gender Matches Assigned at Birth? (Y/N):
Sexuality:
Race:
Nationality:
I can also present you with a flowchart of different takes if you’d prefer to keep it private.
Age: infinite
Gender: ninja
Gender Matches Assigned at Birth? (Y/N): always a ninja
Sexuality: also ninja
Race: no, I like to take it slow
Nationality: Pangea
More casual misandry
Don’t you know? Misandry is cool and correct.
/S
I’ve been getting from interacting with LLMs…with doing more and more and more and more…is not healthy for me or good for the world. It is careless, and has disconnected me from where people are on this.
I think this is very honest and we shouldn’t give someone shit for speaking up.
Yeah, part of what I appreciate about him is that he does consistently acknowledge when he fucks up and tries to change.
This. AI and more generally algorithm dependence is an addiction and watching him struggle with it the past few years has been heartbreaking. Watching him try to bargain and rationalize an objectively misanthropic technology that grew out of a sphere that he was a major role in and did begin as an objectively beautiful attempt at building community and healthy dialogue is very disappointing. I don’t hate or judge him. He tried to do something beautiful. He just didn’t understand the Faustian bargain he made in the process. The systemic forces turning his work into poison.
I don’t judge him for wrestling with it. I’m sad for him. I’m sad for a lot of us. We’re all working in a system that’s slowly killing us to some degree or another. There is no ethically clean life in a system predicated on greed, gluttony and lies. His optimism may have slipped into delusional, but it beats the crushing cynicism that comes with naked realism.
I don’t think that we should lose hope, but the future can’t look like this. His Icarus moment shouldn’t be the end of his journey. I hope he finds himself and begins planting new seeds even if none of us ever live to see the shade of the trees that grow from them.
I mean, we are all going to die. In fact it’s the fear of that that built these AI systems. If you want to go against them then accept death and extinction as our future.
deleted by creator
But this is the first time there’s been this significant of an impact on one’s mental health(?) I’m unsure. It’s so easy to get caught up in that dopamine hit where you feel like you did something. Its even more frustrating when you’re forced to use it in work regularly, whether directly or indirectly (if you’re coworkers are using it there is an indirect force to use it if you need to stay competitive and keep your job and feed yourself and your loved ones especially if your workspace is not healthy)
Thought experiment: is it better to treat the AI as a contractor (fivver etc) who is doing the task you’re asking rather than thinking of it as something you’re doing? From a mental health perspective A contractor because you are only to talk a out the task and nothing else really. That way it’s work could be more distant and you’re less likely to associate it to your work and boost in productivity?
Well said
For me it’s just another disconnected millionaire Youtuber. But he‘s kind of blaming AI or rather his relationship with LLMs for this dilemma instead of actually reflecting on himself. If he thinks simply abstaining from using LLMs will establish a connection to the people he‘s dead wrong and will likely fall back on AI in no time.
Agreed, this is new technology for everybody, we’re allowed growing pains.
Its pretty fucking simple to not use it.
And people could simply not work for major corps.
And they could simply not buy plastic clothes from Walmart.
And they could simply grow their own food.
Etc etc.
i don’t understand why you guys are making it seem like not using LLMs is like some impossible task
like they pretty much didn’t even exist until like a few years ago lol
it’s ridiculous to me, how did people even do stuff before LLMs? the same way they have always done it! (and yeah I work w code and are expected to use them but even then I know this is bullshit)
I understand where you’re coming from, but you could almost always say this about every kind of mistake every person has ever made, and then sit there wondering why humans ever make mistakes, you know?
Then you’re not critically trying to think and examine the implications of this new technology. And that’s fine, we all can’t do all the things but we can listen to the people around us without being pretentious tools who would say I told you so.
It would also have been simple to not use any technology ever that has had controversy around it
But unless you are actively a lodite hermit living in the woods with no connection to the world. In which case your opinion on the topic doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things since clearly you already have a unhealthy relationship with reality.
Learning to have a healthy relationship with new tech is how to actually deal with shit. Not ignoring it forever as if pandoras box wasn’t open.
It’s not going anywhere, even if the bubble pops and all of it dies. Local models will only become more and more common, the tech will only become easier and easier to run and more efficient and effective.
Even if it devolves into a specialist tool for research and science only. That still is going to be something you will have to come to grips with.
The tech is far far more than just chat bots.
We are about to get hardware built for AI specifically. None of this will go away.
Hank Green has earned the right, with me anyway, to have his point of view heard. And frankly he has more credibility with me than the garden variety pitchfork-wielding anti-AI mob. I think Hank is a person who finds AI interesting and sees upsides as well as downsides. But the aforementioned mob is not interested in anything other than the emotional catharsis of railing against something they hate.
Now ask me if the mob is in the room with us, because it probably is.
His AI use caused him so many problems in his private life that his family had to intervene. His point of view is “This technology has had a negative impact on my life and the lives of the people I care about”.
Your pro-AI spiel is a bit tone deaf here
I said nothing pro-AI. But by accusing me of that, you reveal where your own bias (and defensiveness) lies. So thanks for that.
You’re also exaggerating the facts. They didn’t stage an intervention. He turned to his wife and brother and said “do you think my AI use is unhealthy?”
You’ve said plenty pro-AI lol. You don’t have to get so defensive about it, just own your position.
I’ve exaggerated nothing. Hank himself said he’s spoken to both his wife and brother about his AI use and said they “didn’t pull any punches”, which implies there was a blunt conversation about it, if not two.
You don’t actually fucking know him.
That’s probably why he wrote an in depth explanation of what he did, his motive, how it affected him etc.
His public posts on the matter were not made for the people who actually know him.
But they didn’t say anything pro-AI. At most they were anti-anti-AI mob, which is just reasonable, as is with any “mob”. And I read mob here as mindless parrots that keep repeating talking points and hating for the sake of conformity.
Being anti-anti something is being pro-something. That’s the beauty of the double negative.
Also that’s just a very pro-AI user, so the intent can be inferred
I’m anti anything mob. The fucking groupthink on certain issues is real.
I’m also anti people who make shit up and then try to sell it as a long strings of “inferences.”
And after having AI shoved down my throat at work for two years while my teammates get laid off, I’m pretty anti AI too. At most I have direct experience with it that teaches me it has some uses, like summarization.
You’re full of shit. You’ve been told. And you know it by now. But you’ll probably bleat on with more of the same because it’s all you know how to do. Proceed, I guess.
lol sure pal. At least stick to your guns next time.
Brave showing, bravo. I’m glad someone came out of the woodwork to illustrate the monomaniacal mob behavior I was talking about. You did just perfect.
That’s… Not how any of that works?! You can be anti chat bot llm, anti anti ai mob hater, and pro llm science and research bot.
There’s more to the tech then just the chat bots the anti ai mob dipshits all seem to think of when llms come up.
That’s exactly how that works lmao. “Anti” means “opposite”, not some neutral third thing
anti-anti-AI ≠ pro-AI, it assumes there’s only anti-AI and pro-AI and nothing in between.
And the wording was clearly about the anti-AI mob as opposed to people who understand the dangers and benefits of AI. It’s similar to the difference between a Gamer™ and a gamer.
You’re conflating two different somethings. Anti-AI mob is not the same as AI. Being against mob mentality doesn’t make you inherently pro AI.
It’s possible to be pro or anti mob mentality and AI in various different combinations.
You’re on Lemmy… any statements about AI, Musk, trump, McConnell, etc that aren’t over-the-top against them will be met with downvotes.
i have the exact opposite experience about AI, at least on lemmy.ml
Okay but why would anyone be anything but over-the-top against anything on your list?
I mean, like, everything you listed is dog shit.
That’s what I keep fucking asking, Like how can anyone with half a brain be okay with any of them?
Because sometimes in life there are nuances and it is possible to mention one of those topics in a neutral manner, but the absolute hostility held here against anyone who tries to have a conversation beyond “_____ sucks ass!” is exhausting.
This is not one of those times. I don’t want to have a conversation with someone who thinks neutrally about any of those topics.
The adults are talking
There wasn’t an intervention, he asked them about his AI use in response to the outrage and they agreed he’d been using it unhealthy.
Seemed to me more along the lines of “do I have too much salt?” , “yeah you should cut back” ; Then “your coke problem is tearing this family apart”
He said they “did not pull any punches” which implies it was a more blunt conversation than you’re suggesting.
Hank Green himself describes his relationship with AI the same way you would an addiction, and specifically mentions the dopamine reaction driving his use of it to a point where he became overwhelmed by it.
He’s not describing a casual discussion about table salt, he’s literally describing a drug/alcohol addiction.
That’s fair. It’s a new technology, we need trusted people to explore it and tell us what their experience was. I don’t think we have very many trusted people left
You sound like you lick Grok and Gippitys silicon balls.
I don’t even know what that second one is, and I wouldn’t touch Xitter with a ten foot turd.
Ok, I guess you were too busy fondling Gr0ks and gipeettys balls to type out a constructive response. Are these how you’d like them to participate in your silicon fetish?
I thought something was up when he had interviewed some random ass AI expert talking about Mythos because he bought into the whole “OMG it’s gone rogue” bullshit.
I’m not a huge fan of the videos he hosts (I don’t like how he cuts every millisecond between sentences), but SciShow is a genuinely good channel and I’m glad he realized he had problems. Wishing him all the best!
I feel like if that was your primary takeaway from that, the entire point was lost on you.
Take away from what?
From that video, it discusses more than just the fear mongering. It talks about how it works and why we don’t understand it and why we can’t really peer into the net and understand why it generates what it does.
But those are basic concepts of LLMs that I knew about. They explain that and they say “omg scary” which, to me, is just marketing through fearmongering. It’s been a few months since the video and you can see: Anthropic and ChatGPT are now competing on how “rogue” their models are. It’s so tiring.
His audience is diverse, I’m sorry if it can’t cater to only what you need, but I don’t think that’s doable. Just because you don’t derive value, doesn’t mean others don’t.
They fact that he fell for the marketing isn’t negated by him also explaining other parts of AI. That’s kind of non-sequitor
I never said others didn’t. You’re the one that assumed I didn’t see the value because I didn’t understand the video.
Fair point.
im not up on this drama, did people call him out on AI usage excessively or he did himself? if its himself, if he kept quiet he wouldve been able to soften the blow.
He got caught reading out loud very obviously AI generated text
seems like the 1st reason, that made sense. i dont follow him at all, other than scishow(which sparingly follow). im guessing the other channel kurtz really put a sour taste in people interested in sci-talk channels and became sensitive to AI-usage in any sci-talk channels.
He said something that was maybe AI generated or maybe it wasn’t or maybe his use of AI rubbed off on his talking patterns. That’s the drama.
And then he admitted he has been using it too much, to the point it’s been unhealthy for him. He’s been using it to generate notes, in an attempt to be more “productive”. It’s got to the point where he said himself that he isn’t sure what his process (with regard to researching and writing for videos) is anymore, which raises questions about the accuracy of the information he gives.
Yeah, but it still begs the question of if the statement that sparked all of this was itself generated or not. I definitely use AI myself in research but in the same way I use Wikipedia, like a starting point. Its tough to imagine a content creator who likely has a whole team of professionals that he pays just letting it go to waste. Maybe his team has become overly reliant on AI and instead of calling them out he’s chosen to take the heat.
In the end it’s a worthwhile discussion to have for the young and weak willed on the issues of AI usage , kinda similar to the discussion on social media usage or just internet usage all together.
