- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.