In this video, I debunk the recent SciShow episode hosted by Hank Green regarding Artificial Intelligence. I break down why the comparison between AI development and the Manhattan Project (Atomic Power) is factually incorrect. We also investigate the sponsor, Control AI, and expose how industry propaganda is shifting focus toward hypothetical extinction risks to distract from real-world issues like disinformation and regulatory accountability, and fact-check OpenAI’s claims about the International Math Olympiad and Anthropic’s AI Alignment bioweapon tests.

00:00 I wish this wasn’t happening

00:32 SciShow’s Lie Overview

01:58 Intro

02:15 Biggest Lie on the SciShow Video

04:44 Biggest Omission in the SciShow Video

05:56 The “Statement on AI” that SciShow Omits

08:57 Summary of Most Important Points

09:23 Claim about International Math Olympiad Medal

09:50 Misleading Example about AI Alignment

11:20 Downplaying “practical and visible” problems

11:53 Essay I debunked from Anthropic CEO

12:06 Video on Hank’s Personal Channel

12:31 A Plea for SciShow and others to do better

13:02 Wrap-up

  • arnitbier@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    So general understanding seems to be that LLMs which are almost comprehensively understood is not the same as artificial intelligence which is really only conceptually understood for the most part. Still too new and not fully tested, like chemistry when it was still really being worked out. We know definitely some of how it might work but MOST of it will be being developed and debated over a long period of time still to come. So its extremely fair to say we do not know how long that will take and how fast it will develop because we don’t have enough information to establish that yet. Including not having the minutia of how the DEVELOPED systems truly operate which is what most people are taught about these days and (I think) they were pointing out.

    So on that note it seems worth bringing up what the bigger problem here that pissing people off so much, the TERMs used to describe the issue and lack of concrete and agreed upon understanding that MOST people share about the subject that were even discussing makes this tough to get through without everybody being wrong in some capacity or another.

    So you are def kinda wrong, they might be but I dont think that they are really. And to some degree people in the damn field of AI right fucking now will be wrong too

    So, grace brother, remember the learning process and if your goal is to educate, there are more effective ways then that. But also please keep participating, remembering that most people here are simply trying to add their relevant experience and should be treated as such.

    Edit: Yall are… AGI doesn’t exist and we don’t know how to make it and we don’t know how fast ANI is going to develop even slightly. Then there’s how machine-learning so-called AI is NOT generally considered AI by the actual developed standards in the field of AI, and just because they UNDERSTAND how machine learning works really well and have some blueprints for what he calls “advanced AI systems” which are still just machine learning systems doesn’t suddenly change any of this.

    We don’t know how intelligence works. We can’t know how AI works yet. We know system does this if we do that. Reminding of early chemistry fields.

    So the problem HERE becomes that AI, AI and AI all mean different things to different people even in the field of AI which also means something special and to quote OP here “Im so fucking sick of seeing that bullshit” 💀

    Stop bullshitting you know what people are talking about in a field as brand spanking new (read: underdeveloped) as this. But people get your frustration with this one thing even if they are totally wrong about it.