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

  • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    What’s interesting is how these complex models produce anything useful at all. We could very well have complex models that don’t produce anything other than random noise.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      The reason why “we” have these models because they were deliberately trained not to output random noise. That part is well understood.

      The only reason why we don’t know what exactly makes the model output an image of Garfield with boobs is the amount of data to sift through. Not because we don’t understand the processes.

      • magic_lobster_party@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        Generalization is not a given. It’s possible to make complex models that perfectly memorizes 100% of the training data, but produces garbage results if the input diverges ever so slightly from the training.

        This generalization is a process that’s not fully understood. Earlier architectures struggled with this level of generalization, but transformers seem to handle it well.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Not overfitting is hard, yes. But it’s not “we have no idea how/why this works”-hard.