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
Would you consider Conway’s Game of Life to be AI? Because the field certainly did back in the day, and it’s less impressive than LLMs.
No they fucking didn’t. That’s absurd. They may have talked philosophically about if it was alive. No one thought it was intelligent. You can look at the code and know that. They called it AI in the same way video games do maybe, not in the way the academic field does.
It was developed by academics in the first place. It’s AI because it was developed by AI researchers.
That’s how it works. You build knowledge by making these little pieces. LLMs are one of those pieces. It won’t get to full human intelligence on its own, but it might be part of what gets there.
Not everything AI researchers develop is suddenly AI. That’s my point, and they know that. What you’re implying is that as soon as the field developed AI existed, and not before. It being made by AI researchers is not the definition of AI.
Its also not an issue with it not being full human intelligence. It isn’t intelligent at all. It doesn’t think about what it outputs. It’s just a statistical model. It’s a very advanced statistical model that creates the appearance of intelligence, but it isn’t intelligent.
Then what is AI? Or do you think there’s no intermediate steps between Turning Machine and full intelligence?
There are many intermediate steps. That’s what the field of AI work has been doing. This is but one of many steps. It is not intelligent though, so it isn’t AI. It is just a step. A basic Turing Machine is also just a step, and you wouldn’t call it AI, would you?