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

  • Jhex@lemmy.worldEnglish
    421·
    7 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.

    • Tja@programming.devEnglish
      11·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • Jhex@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        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?

        • Tja@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          48 minutes ago

          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.

          • Jhex@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            15 minutes ago

            I assumed they don’t do their research using random crap on “the internet”, but reliable experts, peer reviewed papers and such

            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.

            No specific claims about topics, funding, time or anything. And again, no numbers, so hard to argue objectively.

            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?