Maybe not that interesting for everyone here, but I found no better community for this.

  • Kissaki@feddit.orgEnglish
    3512·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • Jhex@lemmy.worldEnglish
      161·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      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.

    • 87Six@lemmy.zipEnglish
      110·
      2 hours ago

      Yea the channel is known for being biased and just weird in general

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.caEnglish
      61·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
      712·
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        2 hours ago

        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.