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

  • Jhex@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    21 days 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?

      • Jhex@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        20 days ago

        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

      • jj4211@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        20 days ago

        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.