AI will only automate and accelerate fact-checking, at best. If you have no clue about which sources to use, then a less capable AI is even more clueless.

Of course, if people rely on black-box systems in the cloud, I wish them good luck assuming their AI will remain unbiased on controversial topics.

The only saving grace is that there is no single, well-known, authoritative human source with reliably accurate facts on controversial subjects, so at least we’re “no better than AI” in that regard.

Use your brain, your principles, and your own judgment too, for goodness sake.

Honestly, I do believe you. It feels as though we’re living in parallel worlds. Are you logged in by any chance, or do you tend to search for extremely niche content? Do these videos appear in the suggestions on the right side, within the home page’s algorithmic feed, or do they come up during regular searches?

If I wanted to get a completely unbiased and genuinely honest review of a popular car brand for example, I find it nearly impossible using only YouTube search. The overwhelming majority of top results come from creators with tens of thousands of views, and they often seem closely aligned with sellers, which raises concerns about conflict of interest.

When I search on YouTube, I typically see around eight videos from high-view creators, followed by a section labeled “Creators I’ve already watched,” or some unrelated content, and that’s it.

If we have the review and self correcting mechanism of Wikipedia, why do we need another site?

Not every Wikipedia article is detailed; some niche articles may lack information, and people might find editing them daunting. In theory, an LLM could help fill these gaps.

Shouldn’t Musk be spending his time on business ideas that make money?

Is it the wisest use of resources? Maybe not, to be honest. I understand where he’s coming from. Encyclopedias are very important tools for humanity. We could argue that, if he really wanted to start an AI-created project, he should have begun with an AI-powered wiki dictionary as an alternative to Wiktionary.

When it comes to alternatives to YouTube, the situation isn’t great.

The most well-known closed-source option internationally is Rumble. It is not as big as YouTube. It has less content and fewer users.

Beyond that, some of the strongest alternatives are based outside the West. For example, China has platforms like Bilibili and Youku. Russia has services such as Rutube and Okko.

On the open-source side, PeerTube, as you said, and Odyssey stand out as the main options people turn to instead of YouTube.

That said, closed-source platforms, even the better ones, are more like temporary fixes. Over time, they could change in ways that end up feeling just as problematic as YouTube.

1. They still need real people to review the content at some point. Even for non-controversial topics, errors can slip through, and it becomes frustrating when no human has taken the time to check it.

2. I hope people don’t start cutting corners. It’s important to remember that encyclopedias, including human-created ones like Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica, are tertiary sources. They were never meant to serve as authoritative references on their own. Instead, they’re intended as starting points to guide further research. In reality, though, many people rely on them without ever looking at the original sources or taking the effort to verify the information.