YouTuber Hank Green Is Facing a Fan Revolt Over His AI Use
https://gizmodo.com/youtuber-hank-green-is-facing-a-fan-revolt-over-his-ai-use-2000793672Open linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://gizmodo.com/youtuber-hank-green-is-facing-a-fan-revolt-over-his-ai-use-2000793672Open linkView original on lemmy.world
305 replies
He’s been obviously struggling since he got cancer. He’s in remission now and that’s great but I’ve been watching him slowly slip into PTSD. I have medical PTSD, I have cystic fibrosis and had a double lung transplant in 2014 and I see him devolving the same way I did. I’m literally two days away from getting out of an inpatient trauma treatment center that I’ve been at for a month because I didn’t take the medical PTSD seriously because I didn’t realize I needed to, I think he is in the same boat. I think he was already spread way too thin then cancer happened and he’s stuck in a hyper reactive state which is exhausting and eventually leads to the more classic PTSD symptoms and he’s probably turning to LLMs to try to keep up as the PTSD drains his batteries and he’s unaware of it. I hope he gets help soon and he doesn’t wait for it to get as bad as I did, PTSD kills if you let it get away from you.
Hank has been an advocate for knowledge for far longer than LLMs have existed. His recent use of them is disappointing, but I fell like this does not discredit the work he has done throughout his career to push curiosity.
What he does next will be important and will decide how I interact with his content going forward. It seems like he is aware of his missteps and is looking to make a change.
I am not a perfect human and do not expect celebrities to be perfect at all times.
his brother wrote a book on climate change, they should talk to each other
Perhaps over video logs they send to each other periodically...
I don't usually comment on stuff like this but I feel like people should know that "standby" mode on appliances takes up about 40% more power than every data center on earth, of which only about 33% of which goes to AI. There are DEFINITELY environmental concerns surrounding data centers but it's more about shoddily, quickly built ones rather than them existing at all.
Two things are true: one, the "I appreciate the pushback" line was regarding his guest, not a leftover AI thing. Two, this is still strikes 2 and 3 for me. Been wary of him ever since the knitting debacle, and AI use is a bridge too far
Willing to elaborate on "knitting debacle"? I'm a late and infrequent watcher of his YouTube channel.
Oh no! Not the knitting debacle
At least he understands the issue and is willing to change
I like Hank, and this is a shitty article.
That aside he should be facing a revolt.
Hes supposed to be a credible source, hes an educator, hes the modern day Bill Nye. It's very hard to take anything he says as objective truth when his research and fact checking consists of asking an LLM. Considering hallucinations and straight up lies are not only common but not even unexpected for an LLM you can't believe anything that comes from one nor can you believe anyone who uses one.
I’m going to wait and see how he handles this hurdle before I form any long term opinions. Could be an honest mistake that he learns from and improves for the future.
I’ve only really run in to him when he caused grief with the knitting community with a video that had a bunch of misinformation and talking down to knitters („women have been doing this highly technical thing without maths education for hundreds if not thousands of years, here’s a bunch of male scientists to explain what they already know in more formalised and unnecessary language to them“). His reaction to the community‘s criticism soured me on him.
I don’t know about going that far - LLMs can be a great starting point …. As long as you click through to the sources rather than blindly accept
Creating science Youtube videos is not more important than maintaining a livable planet. AI is unnecessary and harmful, and should not be used outside of certain brute-force type of applications like protein folding, simulating new drug structures, or preliminary cancer diagnosis.
seems likes barely useful outside of medical field too. in that article/study, they had to use alot of scans from different people, and doctors reviews to even get a "diagnosis", seems like a fluke they even found the "surprise cancer". i dont think patients/ people are ready to let an AI diagnose people, on off chance it makes a fake diagnosis,. which is why we barely hear stem use of it.
Golf courses use 30x the water that data centers use. Lawns, 100x. Standby mode for appliances costs more energy, by a lot. I wonder how much carbon emissions are offset by people no longer driving to work at call centers and the like.
Out of curiosity do you eat meat? .2% of water is used on data centers. 9.8% is used on beef. For carbon emissions one pound of beef consumed is equivalent to about 640,000 prompts.
AI is an environmental concern but the way people act about it is straight up ridiculous.
Edit: I am very proud of all of the vegans who unplug their appliances who are downvoting me. I, too, am a vegan who unplugs their appliances.
Then you can also just as well skip that extra step and just do it yourself
This. Research that always has to be fully confirmed hasn't actually been done in the first place.
Solving problems by brute force don't make economic sense to me.
Using an automation tool you can only trust for subjective tasks makes even less sense to me.
I find that a frontier bot pointed at the internet does a lot better job of answering the question than I do when searching on my own. I mean they're always going to be wrong about some stuff, but aren't people? I think that's generally a better metric. And at this point they're far away from what they were just a few years ago. But you're correct in that there is an element of brute forcing them or at least shaping them that has to occur that I can't blame anyone for tapping out of.
no its true. ChatGPT is confidently wrong all the time, but I find its wrong in ways I can learn from anyway. I ask the question. it gets the answer wrong. But its wrong in a useful way where I actually learn more by correcting it than just getting the right answer.
I could get the same experience from talking to a person for much less money though
They tend to work much better when you point them at things. Hallucination rates go way, way down when they aren't pulling from their "memory." They are, also, like you say, wrong in ways that are noticeable and often "interesting" in the Ibsen way. I also doubt that you could get the same experience for less money. I'd have to go back to college to get the education I'm getting with AI. At least community college. It's a lot of near-experts at once. And when you point it at expert literature it basically is a senile college professor. But yeah the senile part of that statement is pretty important.
There are no credible sources on YouTube. He's just a guy with a computer and a camera. Youtube is about selling you stuff, people need to accept that.
The beauty of YouTube is that the goals of the company are not necessarily the goals of the content creators.
I'll take any chance I can get to shout out Nick Zentner. Hes a professor of Geology at Central Washington University and he has been posting full length lectures on YouTube for more than 15 years. He is a comprehensive expert in his field and regularly features experts in related fields to help discuss whatever topic he is on at the time.
I used to use his videos to fall asleep, but I have developed a genuine love of geology and vulcanology that I wouldn't have known about otherwise.
You can find some older, rare exceptions, but it is impossible to maintain integrity and fulfill the YouTube algorithms. People think YouTube content is credible because YouTube algorithms give you what you want to hear.
A hyper rational take.
Great starting point for wasting time maybe.
Let me waste 5 minutes reading slop than another 20 min tying to figure out if its a hallucination or just not accurate. 25 minutes that could have been reading a credible accurate source...
In the scenario, what pointed you towards said credible accurate source? Google?
Google is a search engine, not a source.
Yes, that was implied.
Literally who?
Hank Green. You blind?
content producer, usually around science stuff.
YouTube content producer
If you're just going to use an LLM, why should I listen to you? I can just get lies straight from the clanker.
A polemic article that personally insults Hank Green instead of laying out a case. Brain melting AI psychosis indeed.
Thanks, saves time to not read it.
I don't know about a "revolt", but it sure is disappointing.
I like the guy, and most of what he does. I also like, contrary to some, that he usually keep quiet on some controversial topics. Well, I liked that; it seems that he wasn't just "staying quiet", unfortunately.
And, the worst part is just that he, as we know him (remember, parasocial stuff and so on), should have been on the side of people that "know better". I don't understand how you can be that curious of a person, and not seeing the issues here. I understand trying the tools, to see what it's about and what it can actually do; in a sort of experimentation kind of way. I would even understand (but not condone) regularly using them in some ways, once you find something that you can confidently say "it works well enough".
This, however, is not it. And maybe I'm putting him on a sort of pedestal when I say he should have known better, but that's how I feel it. There's a large list of things LLM are known to not be reliable for: searching anything beyond surface informations, properly summarizing actually complex subjects, picking out what's pertinent and what isn't, being consistent, not having blind side, and being truthful (assuming we can decide what truthful means in the first place). All of this is intrinsic to the technology at hand. And while some people argument that "humans are imperfect too", the difference is that humans can spot their mistakes.
And yet, here we are; one of the most prominent science communicator, heavily leaning on this to start his researches, undoubtedly being led astray on some topics by hallucination, missing some big issues on others because the models simply didn't get something out this time (for whatever reasons), getting very heavy confirmation bias (because of course at some point you ask a prompt that's oriented, and the LLM will oblige). And recently, a few things he kept saying, like, we're needing more code… sounded silly. In fact, most of the time I hear something in a field I'm reasonably knowledgeable about, I find things that I don't really agree with.
That's the part that worries me about this. Not that he used large, corporate LLMs "responsibly" (assuming that's a thing one can do, which I'm not convinced of). But that he muddled the image of a reliable source (and we have to decide, at some point, that this or that source is reliable or not) with lots of approximations wrapped in a pretty ribbon. And now, the little things I was slightly weirded out in his videos are taking way more space in my mind, and I'm starting to doubt topics I'm absolutely not knowledgeable about that he's talked about, too, because that's just how trust works.
At the end of the day, reliable people come and goes, but the "disclosure" sure sounded like he didn't actually grasp the issues, only barely that there might have been issues.
People need to chill the fuck out
it's more fun to flip out over random harmless bullshit than stuff that actually matters though.
How DARE you!
Don't tell me what to do 👺
christ this comment section is unhinged
I‘m a little surprised how easy Lemmy goes on a millionaire Youtuber who refuses to take actual responsibility of his actions. Mind you, there are worse things than producing slob but people really believed in that guy. And all he offers is a non-apology first where he stated that he doesn‘t really remember. Followed by saying AI psychosis made him do it. Just be an adult, man. That‘s all I‘m asking.
AI psychosis is a real thing. For all that AI is really terrible at (ie most things CEOs want to replace real people for), it is excellent at feeding you what you want to hear in every situation. Especially the ones where a real person would push back on you for your own good.
Alright, so he got addicted to what felt like an easy source of knowledge. Can happen to anyone.
I guess I'm just tired of finding things to be upset about. I've lived more than five decades and it's been outrage after outrage after outrage.
I'm tired, boss.
He's admitted there was a problem and it got out of hand. If he changes, what's the huge deal going forward?
We need social safety nets. We need universal health care. We need to kick fascists out of our government. And sure, we need to fix smaller problems, but jesus christ does every last thing have to be drama?
This is an issue I'm seeing more and more of. People are demanding that others be perfect at all times. We all fuck up and make mistakes. If we write off everyone we've ever disagreed with as irredeemably bad, then we're telling people there's no point in growing and changing.
When I was a kid in the early 90s in Texas, I thought homosexuality was immoral. I was wrong and I've spent the last 30 years preaching for inclusion and tolerance. And that's the story for most people my age. In the 90s, a Democratic President banned openly gay people from being in the military.
If we want to change society, we have to invite others to our side with open arms, not condemn them.
People demand others be perfect so they can live vicariously through them while their own life is a miserable mess. They refuse to have any form of introspective and self acknowledgement of themselves to make their own lives better, so they need others around them to be perfect, even if those others is a para-social relationship with a Youtuber.
It depends what you define as drama.
I would say this is just about him breaking his community's trust in him, and people let him know that. So now he'll need to work to earn it back.
It isn't really drama, but I can understand why people would feel a bit betrayed when they find out this person, who presents themselves as a science communicator, was heavily using a machine that is well known for hallucinations and spreading misinformation.
Additionally, Hank himself has said he is deeply concerned about the effects of AI on the climate crisis, the consolidation of economic power, and the way it was trained. Him heavily using it can makes it feel as though he doesn't care about that stuff as much as it initially appeared. And given his community includes a lot of people heavily worried about the climate crisis, consolidation of economic power, and the theft of artists' work, I think them being angry at him is understandable and expected.
Of course, hopefully he now steps back and reflects on this, and then comes back better. But that couldn't happen without someone calling him on it first.
This post deserves more visibility.
Yeah I'm with you. I'm disappointed, but everyone will disappoint you in some way some times. Hell I'm disappointed in myself plenty of the time.
I agree, we try our best, but we've got to focus on the truly existential issues.
No no I want this one guy to be ahistorically flawless please. That is more important than any major issue like fascist revival movements and/or the climate crisis /s
Preach.
We need tolerance. Our society has become so dictatorial, even the most left leaning and liberal ones, we simply cannot tolerate anything we don't agree with.
Everyone wants to make their own perfect universe where everybody says and does one thing. We should accept each other's mistakes and faults, and live in more harmony.
Yeah, I feel the response has gotten way out of hand. Sure, I'm not happy about it. But I have some faith Hank will actually reflect on the situation.
he probably needs to take a break from uploading and wait a while.
Taking breaks is not what creators do anymore after a backlash as it kills the channel. He will keep posting stuff. Maybe even ride the anti AI wagon for engagement. He‘s a content creator through and through.
Apparently, that's become less of an issue lately, at least on YouTube. I follow several creators that have started taking breaks for various reasons and the ones that are open about analytics don't see a drop from it anymore.
5 decade club reporting 🫡 and I'm tired too.
"If it bleeds, it leads." Drama leads to clicks, clicks lead to advertising, advertising = money. Same ol' story, its just super easy now with the internet.
Also an old.
The outrage machine has never been anything but a slow drip of poison to keep us too overwhelmed/afraid to see what the oligarch class is doing to us.
Now it's a fire hose.
Hate is an easy way to engage users, that is why most news channels use it as a hook when formatting articles.
I'm tired of it too.
I'm glad I dont know who he is and I will continue to not know him.
These days it seems like the internet is more pleasant the less influencers you know, and most aren't worth knowing any further about.
I think the past where people's awareness of public figures was much more distant was a healthier time. Like knowing the famous athlete or actor, but nothing further about their lives and not feeling like "you know them" because they called our your username or liked your comment and not being able to send them a direct message.
He and his brother created tons of online free science material that was used by several high schools apparently. I found him post all that, but it's understandable that a lot of people have leeway with him, given that he was a big helper in so many places, and that he got cancer.
I mean, look how hostile Lemmy usually is and how tactful they are being with him, he definitely has built some reputation of being a good guy.
You're right that most influencers aren't worth knowing any further, but Hank is one of the exceptions. I wouldn't even call him an influencer honestly, that's way WAY too generic of a term for what he's done. His excitement for knowledge and learning, and spreading the things he learns, has helped a generation with thinking skills and getting them interested in the sciences.
That's pretty disappointing, watched his content a ton years ago. I feel like Ai has that reverse Midas touch.
What's scary to me is that Hank Green is a rationale, intelligent person with time, money, resources, etc. Everything someone could want to be successful at their passion. And in this case, the passion is literally explaining science. If his own family has to have an intervention on his AI use (which it seems like they did?) after he denied reciting AI prompts on video despite being caught red-handed (which it seems like he did?) what chance do normie script kiddy vibe coders have? Is this the future? Addicts with rotting brains and AI psychosis leading the planet to destruction?
The allure of outsourcing your mental load to a chat bot designed to tell you exactly what you want to hear is too much. Everyone's getting high off their own supply.
That's what's wild about this to me - disagreeing about AI usage with someone like Hank Green (and similar public figures) feels so wrong when he and his brother practically saved my ass in highschool w/ Crash Course. But ig none of us are immune to addiction.
Those who are the most vulnerable to fall for the cult are a) those who have no safeguards or experience and thus don't see the signs that it is a cult, and b) those who see the signs and know for a fact it is a cult, but think themselves they can outsmart the cult.
His overconfidence is the reason he is leaning so hard into AI. Because he thinks himself knowledgeable and smart enough to always know better than the AI slop. He is the perfect mark to fall for it.
It must feel godlike to manifest your will simply by speaking it. I can understand why that would addict people. This is exactly why they are pushing it so hard - they know it has this effect, people will demand it, they will fight for it. They will give over their enterprise and their personal lives to it, the way a drug or gambling addict gives over everything they have to it.
With that kind of impact - especially early on, before people realize they’ve been taken - they can build enough momentum to corner all compute.
No longer can we gather or organize without our names attached, without our intent scanned and analyzed, our location tracked, or our wallets closed. We will have to drink our verification cans, and we will have to be nice to Trump, or else they will see what you wrote on your iPad Cloud or your Google Pixel Light and then they will debank you, like waking up from the Matrix. “Go woke and go broke” was always a premonition about control.
I keep those power fantasies to my brain because I can tell the difference between a daydream and reality. I don’t care what AI could make me feel, I am never going to use it for anything if I’m aware of it.
rational*
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better
We've been saying that for decades. When does it get better?
Well you see it's going to get worse before it gets better.
It doesn't
When gen AI hits a job market that doesn't exist thanks to AI, I wonder what's going to happen.
IMO we are still quite a long way off from it, but if/when it does become prevalent it will depend on how fast the greedy capitalists deploy it. If they do it fast enough there will be too many displaced with little to lose, which will lead to revolution.
I can understand why this technology would be particularly addicting to hank.
His whole persona is answering questions like "what color flower do bees like the most" with the kind of enthusiasm that shows his curiosity and deep passion for science. So a machine where you can put in those sorts of questions and get an almost instant answer would be very addicting.
Only they're not "answers". AI does not provide information, it tells you what you want to hear. It even makes up fake scientific papers as "references". So you think your info is backed up by peer reviewed sources. Nope!
Oh they'll give "answers" alright. They could just be wrong or untethered from reality.
One of my favorite economics bloggers for decades started sourcing his information with LLMs. He was such a bright guy. 😭
The better models absolutely will cite real scientific papers that are relevant to your discussion. It doesn't hallucinate as a matter of course, it can hallucinate some of the time. You can't trust what it gives you 100%, you have to verify it. But it very often gives useful answers and information.
Broski, it's not early 2023 anymore. Thinking models with internet access have been able to provide public sources just for over a year now. Technology evolves; shocking, I know...
They do far better today than they did three years ago, but they still get stuff wrong constantly. I've had it give me the source for claims, and the source says the exact opposite of what it claimed. This isn't a quantized to hell model running on my own hardware, but Opus from Claude.
My go to is to get people to ask it something they know a lot about, and see how bad inaccurate it is. If it gets something you know about so wrong, how wrong is it for everything else?
ok, but they will give you a different answer to a question a day later if you delete previous prompts.
That’s just not true.
But when I get fixated on something, I want the correct answer. I'd hate to learn the wrong answer and repeat it to someone - I've done that before and I hate it. That's why I avoid AI on principle. I want the right answer and AI won't give that to me about things I know about so I won't trust it on things I don't know about.
This is the thing about LLMs and their users I genuinely don't get. Like, objectively, being able to input plain speech into a computer and get an almost immediate, detailed, 95% accurate answer is incredible. Genuine technological marvel.
But 95% accuracy is functionally useless for all but the most basic, unimportant tasks. Outside of a coding context (a big exception, to be clear), are people really satisfied with that?
The majority of human history at all levels of science, philosophy, and mathematics. The best you could ever hope for was 95%. Hell you were lucky to break 90% accuracy.
Because the only people you could ask questions was the people in the room with you right then and there or the people you could actively physically go ask.
If you were extremely lucky you could write to someone who MIGHT know more. Or may there's a book about it that someone knows exists.
95% can and frequently is very much over kill for almost everything anyone will need for their day to day life for random trivia or even most important work.
Very few fields need more than that, and few still is it a matter of life or death.
The part that people fuck up is not being open to learning more and being corrected.
Let's be honest, most sources online are not 100% accurate. Even before LLMs, find any random article about something you're an expert in, and there was a good chance you'd spot some inaccuracies. Most of the time, those inaccuracies aren't a big deal, and when they are, you should be consulting an expert for those.
For me personally, I would rate AI accuracy at about 75%. And for some of my use cases, that's a pretty decent starting point. Things with no consequences, like trying to quickly find the relevant console command for the game I'm playing. I can get instant feedback on whether it gave me correct info, and if not then I hit Google.
I would never trust AI, at least in its current state, to tell me the truth for anything of consequence.
Most scientific reviews cite papers in which only the title was read, and often the titles are not justified in the papers.
If you can confirm it, it doesn't matter what percentage is correct.
When solving computer problems, using an LLM to guide you to the correct answer doesn't even need 95% accuracy. Every step it gives you have to execute manually, so if something is hallucinated you will notice really quickly. And if by the end your problem is solved, then all the hallucinations didn't matter.
You could do just as well googling Stack Overflow back when Google wasn't shit.
But now both SO and Google are shit...
You're immune to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect!
You should avoid social media. You aren’t immune to wrong answers here either. You can just read it from another person and carry it with you. Best get offline!
Perfect example, wrong answer. Stay on the Fediverse, at least until Eternal September gets here.
For what he's trying to do, it's not even a horrible use-case. But as someone is a ready to go to the mat on fact checking, he's definitely not anywhere near arduous enough about it.
He's not treating it like aunt marge. You wouldn't make a tv show around finding out truth, then go ask your aunt Marge and not follow up on her answers.
AI for general information gives you approximate directions at best, maybe you got a wikipedia page and maybe you're reading 297 regurgitations of some asshole that didn't know what the fuck he was talking about on reddit who got reposted over and over.
The best way I've seen it put is that ai is the perfected form of the wisdom of the masses. It's 90% right 90% of the time. But the most important part is the last 10%.
90% is good enough for most things in your day to day life that have no consequences. But it's like people have forgotten what it was like before smart phones.
Back when your best chance of a good answer was asking who ever was in hear shot if they knew and just accepting that as good enough. You never treated it as fact just as the best answer your going to get at the moment.
For anything important you would go to the damn library.
No LLM model system card claims such high rate as 90%. Fable claims in its system card, what, 40% hallucination rate?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.10791 yep (no Fable score here)
I think this is very honest and we shouldn't give someone shit for speaking up.
This. AI and more generally algorithm dependence is an addiction and watching him struggle with it the past few years has been heartbreaking. Watching him try to bargain and rationalize an objectively misanthropic technology that grew out of a sphere that he was a major role in and did begin as an objectively beautiful attempt at building community and healthy dialogue is very disappointing. I don't hate or judge him. He tried to do something beautiful. He just didn't understand the Faustian bargain he made in the process. The systemic forces turning his work into poison.
I don't judge him for wrestling with it. I'm sad for him. I'm sad for a lot of us. We're all working in a system that's slowly killing us to some degree or another. There is no ethically clean life in a system predicated on greed, gluttony and lies. His optimism may have slipped into delusional, but it beats the crushing cynicism that comes with naked realism.
I don't think that we should lose hope, but the future can't look like this. His Icarus moment shouldn't be the end of his journey. I hope he finds himself and begins planting new seeds even if none of us ever live to see the shade of the trees that grow from them.
Yes. He doesn't want to admit, he's gone as far down this path as he responsibly can. He doesn't want to transition to the "producer" role, where he becomes a resource for a new generation that's seeking a future away from the old platforms.
It's a bit like the oil man who knows his work enabled so much good, unable to also admit his product has a dark side, and it's time for us all to move on from it. That times changed and a new world is struggling to be born.
I disagree about "edutainment" in a qualified way. We still need communicators and domain experts sharing their knowledge, and there's still a great deal of knowledge to share, but I don't think it's on YouTube (or TikTok). People talking out of turn on matters so far outside their expertise and experience they're effectively neophytes, and just as vulnerable to Dunning-Kruger impulses certainly doesn't help. I don't think that AI or better algorithms are going to save them either, that's a good way to end up lost in a psychotic hallucination. I don't know what it will look like yet but it isn't going to come from the tech giants. Unless Wikipedia wants to take a crack at it, they might be the only ones that could pull it off.
Well said
But this is the first time there's been this significant of an impact on one's mental health(?) I'm unsure. It's so easy to get caught up in that dopamine hit where you feel like you did something. Its even more frustrating when you're forced to use it in work regularly, whether directly or indirectly (if you're coworkers are using it there is an indirect force to use it if you need to stay competitive and keep your job and feed yourself and your loved ones especially if your workspace is not healthy)
Thought experiment: is it better to treat the AI as a contractor (fivver etc) who is doing the task you're asking rather than thinking of it as something you're doing? From a mental health perspective A contractor because you are only to talk a out the task and nothing else really. That way it's work could be more distant and you're less likely to associate it to your work and boost in productivity?
No. This is a line we cannot cross and if it destroys us, so be it. I'm not against AI, or automation. But not these tools. Not these companies. Not these models. The question is death or death. So we learn to live without, or we die. There is no synthesis possible with this paradigm.
I mean, we are all going to die. In fact it’s the fear of that that built these AI systems. If you want to go against them then accept death and extinction as our future.
No. I refuse. We may die, but I refuse to surrender. Where there is life, there is hope, and we're not dead yet.
Yeah, part of what I appreciate about him is that he does consistently acknowledge when he fucks up and tries to change.
Agreed, this is new technology for everybody, we're allowed growing pains.
Its pretty fucking simple to not use it.
And people could simply not work for major corps.
And they could simply not buy plastic clothes from Walmart.
And they could simply grow their own food.
Etc etc.
i don't understand why you guys are making it seem like not using LLMs is like some impossible task
like they pretty much didn't even exist until like a few years ago lol
it's ridiculous to me, how did people even do stuff before LLMs? the same way they have always done it! (and yeah I work w code and are expected to use them but even then I know this is bullshit)
I understand where you're coming from, but you could almost always say this about every kind of mistake every person has ever made, and then sit there wondering why humans ever make mistakes, you know?
Then you're not critically trying to think and examine the implications of this new technology. And that's fine, we all can't do all the things but we can listen to the people around us without being pretentious tools who would say I told you so.
I've been examining and thinking about artificial neural networks since ~2010.
It is pretty fucking simple to not use an LLM.
It would also have been simple to not use any technology ever that has had controversy around it
But unless you are actively a lodite hermit living in the woods with no connection to the world. In which case your opinion on the topic doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things since clearly you already have a unhealthy relationship with reality.
Learning to have a healthy relationship with new tech is how to actually deal with shit. Not ignoring it forever as if pandoras box wasn't open.
It's not going anywhere, even if the bubble pops and all of it dies. Local models will only become more and more common, the tech will only become easier and easier to run and more efficient and effective.
Even if it devolves into a specialist tool for research and science only. That still is going to be something you will have to come to grips with.
The tech is far far more than just chat bots.
We are about to get hardware built for AI specifically. None of this will go away.
Hank Green has earned the right, with me anyway, to have his point of view heard. And frankly he has more credibility with me than the garden variety pitchfork-wielding anti-AI mob. I think Hank is a person who finds AI interesting and sees upsides as well as downsides. But the aforementioned mob is not interested in anything other than the emotional catharsis of railing against something they hate.
Now ask me if the mob is in the room with us, because it probably is.
His AI use caused him so many problems in his private life that his family had to intervene. His point of view is “This technology has had a negative impact on my life and the lives of the people I care about”.
Your pro-AI spiel is a bit tone deaf here
I said nothing pro-AI. But by accusing me of that, you reveal where your own bias (and defensiveness) lies. So thanks for that.
You’re also exaggerating the facts. They didn’t stage an intervention. He turned to his wife and brother and said “do you think my AI use is unhealthy?”
You’ve said plenty pro-AI lol. You don’t have to get so defensive about it, just own your position.
I’ve exaggerated nothing. Hank himself said he’s spoken to both his wife and brother about his AI use and said they “didn’t pull any punches”, which implies there was a blunt conversation about it, if not two.
But they didn't say anything pro-AI. At most they were anti-anti-AI mob, which is just reasonable, as is with any "mob". And I read mob here as mindless parrots that keep repeating talking points and hating for the sake of conformity.
Being anti-anti something is being pro-something. That’s the beauty of the double negative.
Also that’s just a very pro-AI user, so the intent can be inferred
I’m anti anything mob. The fucking groupthink on certain issues is real.
I’m also anti people who make shit up and then try to sell it as a long strings of “inferences.”
And after having AI shoved down my throat at work for two years while my teammates get laid off, I’m pretty anti AI too. At most I have direct experience with it that teaches me it has some uses, like summarization.
You’re full of shit. You’ve been told. And you know it by now. But you’ll probably bleat on with more of the same because it’s all you know how to do. Proceed, I guess.
lol sure pal. At least stick to your guns next time.
Brave showing, bravo. I’m glad someone came out of the woodwork to illustrate the monomaniacal mob behavior I was talking about. You did just perfect.
You're conflating two different somethings. Anti-AI mob is not the same as AI. Being against mob mentality doesn't make you inherently pro AI.
It's possible to be pro or anti mob mentality and AI in various different combinations.
That's... Not how any of that works?! You can be anti chat bot llm, anti anti ai mob hater, and pro llm science and research bot.
There's more to the tech then just the chat bots the anti ai mob dipshits all seem to think of when llms come up.
That’s exactly how that works lmao. “Anti” means “opposite”, not some neutral third thing
anti-anti-AI ≠ pro-AI, it assumes there's only anti-AI and pro-AI and nothing in between.
And the wording was clearly about the anti-AI mob as opposed to people who understand the dangers and benefits of AI. It's similar to the difference between a Gamer™ and a gamer.
You're on Lemmy... any statements about AI, Musk, trump, McConnell, etc that aren't over-the-top against them will be met with downvotes.
i have the exact opposite experience about AI, at least on lemmy.ml
Okay but why would anyone be anything but over-the-top against anything on your list?
I mean, like, everything you listed is dog shit.
That's what I keep fucking asking, Like how can anyone with half a brain be okay with any of them?
Because sometimes in life there are nuances and it is possible to mention one of those topics in a neutral manner, but the absolute hostility held here against anyone who tries to have a conversation beyond "_____ sucks ass!" is exhausting.
This is not one of those times. I don’t want to have a conversation with someone who thinks neutrally about any of those topics.
The adults are talking
There wasn't an intervention, he asked them about his AI use in response to the outrage and they agreed he'd been using it unhealthy.
Seemed to me more along the lines of "do I have too much salt?" , "yeah you should cut back" ; Then "your coke problem is tearing this family apart"
He said they “did not pull any punches” which implies it was a more blunt conversation than you’re suggesting.
Hank Green himself describes his relationship with AI the same way you would an addiction, and specifically mentions the dopamine reaction driving his use of it to a point where he became overwhelmed by it.
He’s not describing a casual discussion about table salt, he’s literally describing a drug/alcohol addiction.
You don’t actually fucking know him.
That’s probably why he wrote an in depth explanation of what he did, his motive, how it affected him etc.
His public posts on the matter were not made for the people who actually know him.
That's fair. It's a new technology, we need trusted people to explore it and tell us what their experience was. I don't think we have very many trusted people left
You sound like you lick Grok and Gippitys silicon balls.
I don’t even know what that second one is, and I wouldn’t touch Xitter with a ten foot turd.
Ok, I guess you were too busy fondling Gr0ks and gipeettys balls to type out a constructive response. Are these how you'd like them to participate in your silicon fetish?
I literally use no AI in my day to day. I try and bully AI users tbh
For me it’s just another disconnected millionaire Youtuber. But he‘s kind of blaming AI or rather his relationship with LLMs for this dilemma instead of actually reflecting on himself. If he thinks simply abstaining from using LLMs will establish a connection to the people he‘s dead wrong and will likely fall back on AI in no time.
Is he.
I really don't get it. It's so easy for me not to use AI 99% of the day, same as not using social media. I cannot understand why people get addicted to it so easily.
He seems fairly prone to ego stroking, which internet goers would typically label as narcissistic.
Kind of the target audience for the sycophant machine
See the knitting debacle… where SciShow put out an episode about the science of knitting which was poorly researched and it was clear that they had consulted zero knitters.
I’ve always really liked SciShow - to the point I’ve assigned some episodes to my students - but it’s just embarrassing when it would have been trivially easy to hit up Ravelry and run the video past people who won’t call yarn “string.”
Yeah I mentioned that incident elsewhere in this thread. It was my only time seeing his content and his response was enough to get me to not watch more. That video was so obnoxiously paternalistic and people were rather mild in how they pointed it out. He just doubled down.
some of the recent episodes were quite sloppy. they just stuck to the original format.
What are you using it for during the 1%??
Personally I've found that ai is fantastic at pulling files off my phone cause I'm a lazy shit... Iv trained it so that when I tell it "do the thing" it pulls all the pictures off my phone and backs them up.
It's fun, whimsical, and while I could do it a host of other ways. This is just more fun.
Which is honestly kinda what I see as one of the better use cases for local models. Sure you could do the same thing with a script, or by hand.
But it's not as /fun/ as having a little robot butler that slings one liners from various cartoons that you don't have to prepick as it enacts your will.
...so your good use case for AI is running a task apps have been able to do automatically for 20 years...?
It's like buying a robot butler to manually turn off the lights
Yes we did that with smart bulbs. We aren’t against the robot butler.
That's what I'm saying. The butler is overkill for a solved problem
Just have the ai make the script. It’s going to go off the rails one day and you’ll regret that whimsy.
I'm on your side, but replace AI or social media with "meth" in your argument and see how that logic works. (Becoming easily addicted to something vs. avoiding something [because using it would rapidly become addictive])
I thought something was up when he had interviewed some random ass AI expert talking about Mythos because he bought into the whole "OMG it's gone rogue" bullshit.
I'm not a huge fan of the videos he hosts (I don't like how he cuts every millisecond between sentences), but SciShow is a genuinely good channel and I'm glad he realized he had problems. Wishing him all the best!
I feel like if that was your primary takeaway from that, the entire point was lost on you.
Take away from what?
From that video, it discusses more than just the fear mongering. It talks about how it works and why we don't understand it and why we can't really peer into the net and understand why it generates what it does.
But those are basic concepts of LLMs that I knew about. They explain that and they say "omg scary" which, to me, is just marketing through fearmongering. It's been a few months since the video and you can see: Anthropic and ChatGPT are now competing on how "rogue" their models are. It's so tiring.
His audience is diverse, I'm sorry if it can't cater to only what you need, but I don't think that's doable. Just because you don't derive value, doesn't mean others don't.
I never said others didn't. You're the one that assumed I didn't see the value because I didn't understand the video.
Fair point.
They fact that he fell for the marketing isn't negated by him also explaining other parts of AI. That's kind of non-sequitor
Glad he's recognizing the problem and trying to get help. Instant gratification is a hell of a drug.
when he messed up was when he pissed off the crochet and knitter crowd. 😂
Here's Hank's response on Reddit.
Reddit blocks me. Can anyone post it here?
Three things to start:
I'm mortified that I have let so many people down and I think I understand how that happened.
I'm going to change things about how i make stuff.
Complexly's AI policy is public and well-considered and adhered to by the whole team, I think it's worth reading! (Complexly is the non-profit that makes Crash Course and SciShow and a bunch of other shows that I do not write for.)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14E2JfjNoLdQPSlkyZdCN_8scQlxl4CT1PdZ0iE1IEg4/edit?tab=t.0
The thing that everything we do is based on is that you know that what I'm saying are my thoughts coming from my brain in the way I decide. I have made that harder and I'm sorry. I have been relying too heavily on AI as a research aid. It can be very useful for this task, giving me access to a lot of papers I didn't know existed really fast, but I think that has been to the detriment of my work because it has not given me the freedom to find all of my own ways into and around a topic.
But, for clarity, the origin of claims in my videos are not "ChatGPT's said this." I have been using AI to locate papers and other resources for learning about topics. You are still getting my takes based on what I read, know, and learn.
I think what people have said in this thread about me diluting myself is spot on. Ultimately, what I am most scared of is ruining myself for people, but I have not been managing my impulses well. You need to know that my words are mine. I don't think that this hasn't been true, but I've been moving so fast that my own process isn't actually clear to me and I want to have it be a guarantee moving forward.
What I can't guarantee, though, is that we will agree about this technology or what to do with it. I think that's good. We need a lot of kinds of folks critiquing this technology.
I'm not a pure AI-hater, which people in the AI industry know, so when I say that the way these models were trained deeply disturbs me, that lands differently.
When I say that I think that the speed at which these companies are trying to consolidate economic power should freak out everyone in the world, that's coming from someone who has "nuanced takes." When I say I worry about the climate impacts of this rollout, that is not me saying, "I don't think this tech should ever exist" it's me saying, "for god's sake please don't make our biggest problem worse." It is very likely that you (the reader) and I disagree on how or even whether AI should be used. I think it makes sense for that disagreement to exist. But I have also always believed that my audience is more likely to be right than I am. You know what this feels like in a way I can't. And I am so sorry for diluting myself in this way and harming the thing that we have all built together.
As for the "why don't you just make less! No one is making you do this!" I'm not sure that's how I work. I've been feeling the pressure of "Oh, I have this little video idea, I need to get it out real fast so I can get to the more important stuff" and I create when I feel that pressure.
But making more things does not make me make better things. It does not make the big thing that we've been doing for 20 years better. I know that I can manage myself more effectively. I want to make videos like the one I made yesterday on hankschannel where the writing was the whole thing and I felt it all the way down and have been so enriched by people's responses to it. And sure, I'm probably going to make dumb unscripted straight to camera thoughts videos sometimes. And then I'll play connections.
But mostly I need to come to terms with the fact that the level of dopamine I've been getting from interacting with LLMs...with doing more and more and more and more...is not healthy for me or good for the world. It is careless, and has disconnected me from where people are on this. I was talking about this with Katherine last night and she did not pull any punches. Frankly, neither did John. Neither of them think I've been being healthy. I need to readjust.
SO - what changes.
Expect less hankschannel. It may need to pause for a while.
It may be that Hankschannel comes back with writing and research support. It may be that it comes back with just way fewer videos. I am going to spend this time finishing a video I've been working on for ages that I think really really matters. 2. SMUSH and 4x3 are getting paused as well. If there are bugs, there are bugs. I have backlog of 4x3 boards right now and, frankly, writing them is usually a solace to me, but if we run out, I am not going to worry about that...so if it just reverts to a static board one day...that'll be that.
I do deeply want to support good store and complexly in whatever way I can, so there may be some stuff on that front. But the reliance on me has always been risky, so we need to build for that as well.
I'm very sorry for harming the thing this is all based on.
I gotcha:
Three things to start:
I'm mortified that I have let so many people down and I think I understand how that happened.
I'm going to change things about how i make stuff.
Complexly's AI policy is public and well-considered and adhered to by the whole team, I think it's worth reading! (Complexly is the non-profit that makes Crash Course and SciShow and a bunch of other shows that I do not write for.)
The thing that everything we do is based on is that you know that what I'm saying are my thoughts coming from my brain in the way I decide. I have made that harder and I'm sorry. I have been relying too heavily on AI as a research aid. It can be very useful for this task, giving me access to a lot of papers I didn't know existed really fast, but I think that has been to the detriment of my work because it has not given me the freedom to find all of my own ways into and around a topic.
But, for clarity, the origin of claims in my videos are not "ChatGPT's said this." I have been using AI to locate papers and other resources for learning about topics. You are still getting my takes based on what I read, know, and learn.
I think what people have said in this thread about me diluting myself is spot on. Ultimately, what I am most scared of is ruining myself for people, but I have not been managing my impulses well. You need to know that my words are mine. I don't think that this hasn't been true, but I've been moving so fast that my own process isn't actually clear to me and I want to have it be a guarantee moving forward.
What I can't guarantee, though, is that we will agree about this technology or what to do with it. I think that's good. We need a lot of kinds of folks critiquing this technology.
I'm not a pure AI-hater, which people in the AI industry know, so when I say that the way these models were trained deeply disturbs me, that lands differently.
When I say that I think that the speed at which these companies are trying to consolidate economic power should freak out everyone in the world, that's coming from someone who has "nuanced takes."
When I say I worry about the climate impacts of this rollout, that is not me saying, "I don't think this tech should ever exist" it's me saying, "for god's sake please don't make our biggest problem worse."
It is very likely that you (the reader) and I disagree on how or even whether AI should be used. I think it makes sense for that disagreement to exist. But I have also always believed that my audience is more likely to be right than I am. You know what this feels like in a way I can't. And I am so sorry for diluting myself in this way and harming the thing that we have all built together.
As for the "why don't you just make less! No one is making you do this!" I'm not sure that's how I work. I've been feeling the pressure of "Oh, I have this little video idea, I need to get it out real fast so I can get to the more important stuff" and I create when I feel that pressure.
But making more things does not make me make better things. It does not make the big thing that we've been doing for 20 years better. I know that I can manage myself more effectively.
I want to make videos like the one I made yesterday on hankschannel where the writing was the whole thing and I felt it all the way down and have been so enriched by people's responses to it. And sure, I'm probably going to make dumb unscripted straight to camera thoughts videos sometimes. And then I'll play connections.
But mostly I need to come to terms with the fact that the level of dopamine I've been getting from interacting with LLMs...with doing more and more and more and more...is not healthy for me or good for the world. It is careless, and has disconnected me from where people are on this.
I was talking about this with Katherine last night and she did not pull any punches. Frankly, neither did John. Neither of them think I've been being healthy. I need to readjust.
SO - what changes.
Expect less hankschannel. It may need to pause for a while.
It may be that Hankschannel comes back with writing and research support. It may be that it comes back with just way fewer videos. I am going to spend this time finishing a video I've been working on for ages that I think really really matters.
2. SMUSH and 4x3 are getting paused as well. If there are bugs, there are bugs. I have backlog of 4x3 boards right now and, frankly, writing them is usually a solace to me, but if we run out, I am not going to worry about that...so if it just reverts to a static board one day...that'll be that.
I do deeply want to support good store and complexly in whatever way I can, so there may be some stuff on that front. But the reliance on me has always been risky, so we need to build for that as well.
I'm very sorry for harming the thing this is all based on.
Thanks for linking that. I wonder how long he's been using it for. I feel like I noticed at uptick lately in just how saccharine his writing and worldview was getting
Yeah, that new cosmic shore video was really good. I'm kind of disappointed that might be just AI writing.
Was that the recent one about the NASA photos making a short gif? Maybe I'm just too insufferably pessimistic for that kind of thing
That's the one. Felt like he was going for a Sagan kind of prose, and was half decent. Though it rings a little hollow to me, now.
im not up on this drama, did people call him out on AI usage excessively or he did himself? if its himself, if he kept quiet he wouldve been able to soften the blow.
He got caught reading out loud very obviously AI generated text
seems like the 1st reason, that made sense. i dont follow him at all, other than scishow(which sparingly follow). im guessing the other channel kurtz really put a sour taste in people interested in sci-talk channels and became sensitive to AI-usage in any sci-talk channels.
He said something that was maybe AI generated or maybe it wasn't or maybe his use of AI rubbed off on his talking patterns. That's the drama.
And then he admitted he has been using it too much, to the point it's been unhealthy for him. He's been using it to generate notes, in an attempt to be more "productive". It's got to the point where he said himself that he isn't sure what his process (with regard to researching and writing for videos) is anymore, which raises questions about the accuracy of the information he gives.
Yeah, but it still begs the question of if the statement that sparked all of this was itself generated or not. I definitely use AI myself in research but in the same way I use Wikipedia, like a starting point. Its tough to imagine a content creator who likely has a whole team of professionals that he pays just letting it go to waste. Maybe his team has become overly reliant on AI and instead of calling them out he's chosen to take the heat.
In the end it's a worthwhile discussion to have for the young and weak willed on the issues of AI usage , kinda similar to the discussion on social media usage or just internet usage all together.
I only started paying attention to him recently, but I could swear he had a little meltdown in a video hating AI and had to calm himself with his word association game. Maybe I’m thinking of his brother.
He ends all of his videos with that game if he hasn't played it already that day
Cognitive surrender for productivity?
There are few people I trust more than Hank Green when it comes to something like AI.
And that‘s exactly the problem. Somehow this guy has earned a lot of trust and he wasn‘t handling that trust very well. That‘s why people who stand for something like him, should be held accountable and to higher standards than say your aunt posting AI cats with hats in the family group chat.
Respectfully, I don't really understand this opinion. Reading between the lines, he read a Chat-GPT prompt on video, denied it despite it being on video, seemingly leading to his wife and brother holding an intervention on his behalf which ultimately lead to this 'confession.'
Swap AI for any other behavior or substance, and we'd be calling him an addict in need of treatment. An addict's opinion on the validity of their addiction is useless. Hank Green of all people not being able to have a healthy relationship with chatbots is alarming and this is more proof to me that we need even more grains of salt when AI users assure us that AI is great.
Honestly it sounds like, which I think might be worse, that he's been using it so much that he's picked up its mannerisms of speech. From his own description of the confrontations his wife and family had with him, it sounds like he's been talking to it a lot on his own time.
Gotta agree, it's a testament to how addicting that type of validation is that he's finding it addictive as "a source of dopamine". He's always struck me as pretty level headed in my (admittedly limited) watching of him, and he's clearly a smart guy. Reminds me of how nobody is totally immune to forces like advertising and predatory stuff like gambling.
I find that funny because ai cliches actively make me cringe. I think if you’re using ai a lot you’ll actively talk differently from it and you won’t write like it.
I think if he said anything that sounds like AI it’s because it was, and he’s hiding that fact with this excuse.
I appreciate that pushback (/s), although honestly if you (like myself) find AI-tells like that cringe, you're almost certainly not the type of person using it addictively.
There's a pretty strong body of research that lots of people are subconsciously picking up language patterns from AI, such as the increased prevalence of words like "delve". It's the basic social mirroring we do to pick up language from anyone we talk to, only weirdly twisted because the thing so many people are talking to isn't human.
"I appreciate that pushback" isn't a commonly complained enough tell that people would be intentionally avoiding it, I find it pretty believable that a heavy AI user would unironically use it in a Q&A.
I honestly think it's hard to know.
I actively dislike AI and so its formulations are cringe to me. But it seems unsurprising that someone that enjoys using AI would pick up some of its mannerisms, whether consciously or not. This is of course ugly and depressing, as they're essentially borrowing from a piece of software what would normally be imported from culture.
But I think it's plausible that Hank actually formulated that part himself - the guest did after all "push back" on his claim that all words are made up and immediately after the cliche he presents a more nuanced elaboration of his original claim.
It does feel quite awkward because he cuts in so many qualifications and elaborations in-between that by the time we get to that part we're like "what pushback?".
I also don't recall him having actually explicitly made this excuse, though I'm open to being wrong on that part, I don't follow him anywhere except yt.
That's exactly how I saw it. He's showing signs of addiction and needs to get help for such. He's quit and gone back to twitter many times and stories he tells from his youth also hit close enough to home for me to have that worry.
His recent history puts him at the bottom of the list of people I would trust regarding AI.
His quote from the article:
Not really knowing the drama before today, it seems like he is being very rational and speaking honestly about the effects LLMs are having on his behavior and that he identified he needs to change, which is what the whole article is about.
The article (Hank Green understanding himself) and the comment I was responding to (Hank Green misleading people about AI) are two similar different topics that can and should be judged separately.
I was responding to the person who said he was generally trustworthy about the topic in general, with what I think is a significant counterexample.
Ohh jesus, that video (the one with nate soares) was actually the first hank green video i watched (wasnt aware of either them at the time). Though what i remember from my reaction i was mainly pissed off that the video is called "chatgpt isnt smart. Its something much weirder" and than basically doesnt discuss matters of intelligence or similiarities/ differences between human intellect and machine "intellect" at all. Instead we got this worthless moneyquote "this is alchemy" from soares, which even made it onto the thumbnail.
I guess it's up to the reader to determine if the linked article from a few days ago of Hank reflecting bullish attitude should be judged separately from the articles and videos months ago about his behavior he has since identified as problematic. Maybe he used to be a piece of shit, not anymore? People can change.
I don't associate these two different events as evidence of a shift in personal stances, because they can both be things he believes at the same time. That also means that hopefully people can empathize with him even while disagreeing with his stances about some things.
(If his stance did change, that would be great and I wouldn't want to deny it, but his video promoting AI lobbyists is still unfortunately up.)
Slicked back hair, sloppy steaks at Truffoni's.
People can change
I don't generally click on random YouTube videos unless more information is provided, but I give this one a gamble. It was pretty well done and I appreciate the creators overall point and evidence. For anyone else in the comments, I think there are two couple of second long clips of Hank Green that are used to make a larger point about what are essentially attempts at normalizing AI.
Right after posting this, I stumbled on basically a text version of the same sentiment. I can understand not wanting to trust a random YouTube video, even if it is about a guy who most people know due to his own YouTube videos.
The post being: https://www.fromjason.xyz/p/notebook/hank-green-and-the-fantastical-tales-of-god-ais/
Echo the other commenter, wow this dude can write.
It's sad, I noticed this too. I excitedly clicked a Hank Green video about energy and water usage on datacenters and was SUPER disappointed in it. I've worked in energy generation as an engineer for a while, and some of the takes in that video were so obviously big tech's doomerism rhetoric
Wow, this guy can write. When I got to “The Ghost Stories of Savannah”, I thought for moment that it was an unnecessary detour - then I saw it.
Ok, I watched up until he started comparing the development of "AI", as he calls it, to the development of nuclear fission technology, and that's where I got fed up. Is generative AI as "impactful" as a nuclear weapon detonation over a city? This guy says no, but I don't know how you can possibly compare the two. LLMs are great at manipulating information, they aren't high-energy explosives. There's no common definition of "impactful" that meaningfully puts the two technologies on the same scale of comparison. They're just different.
And why does it matter, anyway? Is "nuclear weapons" the bar for when we should start caring about impactful technologies? I think not. Generative AI is an informational monster born of the internet and it is unique to it, and that is a huge problem given that the internet is quickly becoming the defacto medium of communication for groups over a certain size. We should be taking it seriously, full stop. I'm less interested in ranking it alongside other catastrophic technologies.
I think we haven't seen the full potential of generative AI yet, and I fear it may be quite destructive (more destructive) if we can't engineer our way around the dead internet that it was created to usher in. I think we should be trying to learn about it, how it works, how it may evolve, and how to have a usable internet alongside it.
Let me save everyone a click.
This December 2025 video, 20+ minutes long, barely contains any information about Hank Green on AI. The Hank Green content there is consists of one or two lines he spoke in Sci Show videos buried deep in a diatribe about how AI is overblown.
I don’t think the video is worth watching at all, but it is certainly not a relevant contribution to this thread.
People really need to stop putting condescending misogynistic white cis hetero dudes who talk confidently on the internet on a pedestal. This shit happens like, every other week.
The whole knitting saga showed that Hank Green knows nothing about the world but he's ready to confidently spew his very wrong personal notions as facts.
Because in the end, that's the biggest problem. He always talks with over confident authority. Sure, he puts the whole, this is just my opinion as it exist in my brain, spiel. But hidden as a footnote to the end notes. He acts the part of the know it all dunce. His content is so off putting when you even tangentially know a bit about the topic he is talking about. It highlights all his biases and misinformed opinions and how he enjoys showcasing them as scientific facts.
Then there was that time he made a video with harmful information about trans people and completely wrong facts about HRT. Seriously, about AI is not the first time he's been a menace.
EDIT: If you disagree with me but want to know more, here's a video from someone from the knitting community that articulates my gripes with the Green's brand of slop better than I can in the limited space of a Lemmy comment.
Here there's a commentary about the whole HRT misinformation problem.
its about him using AI, i dont see how him being white has anything to do with it. also by the way alot of stem PHD/scientists tends to be white males/poc males predominately in general, so you get more of them in many academic instituitions. he isnt making mysgonistic content, or stereotypes of other races.
only recently are women mainly gen-z, are getting ahead at the undergrad/MS level for some stems, and thats with significant preference and support system in schools for them over men.
Him being a cis het white guy is not relevant here apart from general privileges that come with that. Unless you are saying that one with those attributes should automatically be disregarded or disqualified from public participation, or treated as lesser in matters of science, history, current events, etc. That is not a stance I can support. Equality means equality for all. That does mean that privilege should be recognized and often worked against in the name of equity. But cis het white men can still have a seat at the table of public discourse just like everyone else.
If you have a problem with Hank, the things he says or has said, that is fine. Criticism of ideas is great and necessary. Criticizing the societal privilege that he possesses for some inherent traits or his fame and money is also great and necessary too. But reducing an individual to some set of inherent traits outside of their control and criticizing those traits instead of their words and actions is just prejudice.
Edit: Also, I'm interested in what he said about trans people and HRT that you found objectionable. Same for the misogyny. Can you share a bit about that? And maybe a link to the relevant videos? I personally haven't seen him speak about trans issues in any real detail. And everything that I have seen him say in regards to women and trans people has been generally positive. I'm curious what I may have missed.
He made a video describing hrt and saying it was safer to take testosterone blockers without taking estrogen for mtf trans adults. Which is established in medical science as a sure way to get osteoporosis.
He also claimed that knitting is a female hobby of old grandmas that had no impact in technological development of civilization. Both videos caused an online uproar and have since been delisted.
My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default. This makes him particularly dangerous when he speaks of things he knows nothing of, or was just lectured about by an LLM, as if he is the level headed rational voice. When, more often than not, he isn't. It is when he gets burned that he starts really avoiding topics, which is commendable at least. This is why he carefully avoids touching Palestine-Israel when talking about geopolitics (while also generally supporting a pro US neoliberal stance) or avoids talking about trans people anymore. He did a video on weaving and semi tried to apologize for the knitting thing, but unsuccessfully, since he glorified weaving as a male world of tech advancement unlike knitting.
Regarding the knitting thing, I'll take your word that he once said something to that nature (I never saw that one, so IDK) but just a few months ago he went on a deep dive into textiles and did interviews with subject matter experts about their deep importance to history, technology, and modern life. I thought it was very cool and insightful.
It sounds to me like he made a mistake, assumed he knew more than he did, got and (more importantly) was receptive to the critical feedback from his audience, and decided to dedicate time to correcting his misunderstanding. I'm inclined to give grace to someone for that.
Again, I didn't see the comments on HRT either, and I don't much about know the specific studies regarding health outcomes with different regimens. I will take your word for it on both. I will go so far as to say that he shouldn't speak on specifics regarding health that he is only passingly familiar with, and that is on him. But, I don't think that what you described was, in any way, critical of trans people. And a mistaken opinion based on limited knowledge in an area you do not claim to be an expert in is not really all that unforgivable, especially when you voluntarily take that misinformation down to prevent further spread once you've been corrected. Plenty of people have plenty of opinions about things they don't fully understand, and you don't always know what you don't know. From what I have seen of him, I would hope that he later highlighted his mistake and corrected it, along with removing the video. I don't know that he did, but I have seen him do similar before. I really can't expect that much else from a YouTuber.
I don't think his cis het white male status is what gives him an air of authority on the matter. For one thing, not that it matters, but he has made clear that he is not hetero, but bi, even though he is married to a woman. But regardless, if his authority comes from anywhere, it is that he has spent decades in various forms of science education, provides these resources for free as a non-profit, and loves to do and share research into a wide variety of topics, and do interviews with experts in niche fields to spread knowledge. He has experience and proven dedication to science education. There is nothing about that that has to do with his race, orientation, sex, or gender identity. In fact, the science education channel he created and co-hosts, Scishow, also has several other hosts that are of various races, genders, orientations, etc. He is using his privilege to platform other groups in the science space, actively pushing against the default status you are concerned about.
Again, you are absolutely free to feel however you feel about him, and criticize his ideas, his mistakes, the risky overconfidence you perceive, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that speaking on health issues regarding trans health in particular without a firm expertise or expert source at minimum is a bad idea, and it is potentially grossly negligent to give health advice in that or any area you do not fully understand when you have the kind of platform and perceived authority he does. But I do think that he is of good character, does actively try to help, and willingly admits and corrects his mistakes to the best of his abilities. And so I really can't agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse.
It sounds like your main gripe would be that he speaks before he had certainty, and his platform thus lends credence to his words, right or wrong. That is a very fair critique. We also need to remember that he is a flawed human being like the rest of us, and with a curious mind, loves to learn and share what he has learned. If you put no more stock into his words than that, as one should, then he is harmless. He should be mindful that he's going to be treated with more trust than most and should honor that trust with as much credibility as possible. But also no one is perfect.
I never said so much. I said he has a problem with speaking confidently without double checking himself because of the typical attitude that is socially taught to white cishet men. Which the whole AI thing has clearly highlighted. Again, I don't dislike him as a person, I don't think he is bad, I don't think anyone is purely good or bad. But I think that, though commendable to use his privilege and status to platform diversity, also requires a modicum of caution before speaking. Science communications is one of, if not the hardest, topics of communication because of the great potential for harm if misinformation is given authority. Apologizing and changing to do better is fine, but when it happens over and over, it starts to highlight a pattern of carelessness and lack of impulse control. Science communication requires due diligence and deep nuance. On the contrary, he seems to have been aiming for a neck breaking pace of content creation, accelerating more and more as of late. When you rush, you make more mistakes, you risk doing harm.
If you want to know more, here's a video from someone from the knitting community that articulates my gripes with the Green's brand of slop better than I can in the limited space of a Lemmy comment.
Here there's a commentary about the whole HRT misinformation problem. I had also forgotten the whole «it's misogynistic for trans women to claim they experience mood swings», it's so erasing of personal experiences of all trans persons in general. Anyways, my point is that the Green's are lousy science communicators, and I do think that race, gender and sexual orientation play at least a small part in that. They're far from the first science channel to fall for that trap.
Could you please fill out this survey before I react to your comment. Thanks.
Age:
Gender:
Gender Matches Assigned at Birth? (Y/N):
Sexuality:
Race:
Nationality:
I can also present you with a flowchart of different takes if you'd prefer to keep it private.
More casual misandry
Don't you know? Misandry is cool and correct.
/S
ah yes, hank green who spent an entire video chastising the citizens of ireland for being ignorant of the amoc.
dude never even bothered to think people called it something else there.
hes always been a self-satisfied, arrogant knob
Had to Google AMOC?
Oh right, it's the famous Gulf Stream we rely on and are all worried about of late. Am in Ireland...
exactly. he spent 30 minutes calling the irish ignorant, but the words "gulf stream" never tickled his neurons.
the extra-irony is that up until the last 10-15 years, "gulf stream" is what everyone in the usa called it, too. hank's just so tech-pilled he can't see anything else.
US here. Never heard it called anything but gulf stream.
US here. I remember when it changed, probably 20-25 years ago. (Tho, of course it was gradual and localized and I'm only one data point.) I was an undergrad, and not in my first year.
IIRC, it was because "gulf stream" was a little ambiguous, because there's a lot of gulfs many of which contain oceanic currents / stream. But, if someone in the U.S. or EU says "gulf stream" they are always talking about AMOC.
It's unclear from the article what exactly he did wrong. There's nothing wrong with using AI as long as you triple check the info it gives you.
The main problem we're facing today with this tech is people thinking it's magically perfect and can operate without human supervision. Was that what he was doing?
Well, that is debatable. For some its using Ai is a problem by definition, its not even about the result. A few issues: a) Ai is unethically trained on data without respecting the original license, b) using Ai (probably even paying for it) supports Ai companies, which in turn are causing the massive issues in the tech price increases.
This is like saying that smoking weed is unethical because of the murderous actions of the cartels who grow and distribute it. You're problem with AI isn't with the technology itself nor its use.
I'm not sure about the weed argument, can't say anything about it. But first, my personal problem with Ai doesn't matter to this disussion, as I was talking about what people could have an issue with, not about my personal problems. Secondly farming data without respecting the original license, not even linking to the source where it got from is in fact a problem with "its use". That is an unsolved problem lot of people just ignore, which does not make it less of a problem (it makes it a bigger problem). And that is just a few issues I listed, not even talking about the problems of generated content. There are legitimate concerns using Ai, no matter how you frame it, some just choose to ignore it.
Okay. Then the problem that people, not you particularly, have with AI isn’t with the technology itself nor its use, but the methods by which the companies "grow and harvest it", so to speak.
Which I don't even think is true. People have just lost their minds over this. If a company unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data, we don't say that there are legitimate concerns using books.
We would be having a problem with it if every book was regurgitated stolen data. That's kind of the core of how all of these generative AI models work to the point that their creators have argued in court that they wouldn't exist at all if they weren't allowed to steal all the training data.
It can be trained on the exact same free data that we can be trained on. Just like us, it doesn't have to bypass paywalls. I think they're arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
I think you need to read up on the difference between "free as in beer" and "free" licenses. Everything on Wikipedia is copyrighted under a GNU license, which requires any use to give credit AND ALSO be licensed under the GPL. Which AI models do not (and cannot) do.
Also, just conceptually... We built a giant, free library (and museum and art gallery and etc.) on the internet, and these parasitic AI companies came in and built a fence around it and started charging admission while massively polluting our cities and towns and gobbling up resources at an incredible rate. Then, even if you pay them their admission fees, the information you get is at best 70% correct. Why would anyone celebrate that?
This is misleading and dishonest. Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
Off course we say its a legitimate concern if someone unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data... The point of scraping and stealing data without respecting its license, training their software with it and using it commercially (or even non commercially) without giving even credit and not respecting its original license?
No, its not just the methods. I am talking about deep problems with the technology, the methods how companies go with it, and then its usage from company and end user. Ai trained with those data and used makes it impossible to respect the original license, for the user. So in this case, the company using the Ai AND the user of the model violate licenses. Maybe. Maybe not, if the data allows it. But we don't know and CANNOT check and know for sure, that's the problem. Just because you don't understand the issue or don't care does not make it less of a problem.
As an example with software licenses like GPL requires that any derivative works using this source code (such as Linux or whatever my personal program is licensed under GPL) has to be GPL licenses (Open Source) too. That is not debatable. That is how this license work. Now the Ai can be trained on this data, using the source code, and then? See where this goes? That is only one generalized example.
We have a legitimate concern with that particular book, not all books.
The difference is, you know which book you have a concern with. Ai does not operate like that. With using Ai, you don't know which book the data is from and it is not possible for the Ai to tell you that. There are conceptional problems with Ai. Your book example does not work here, because that works differently than Ai.
The main problem with the output of LLMs is people not checking results, but there are ethical problems with the effective use of it too. Especially if you're you're dealing with the major platforms, who have shown no qualms allying themselves with fascist governments, surveillance capitalists, or just generally being cavalier about workers rights. (And obviously extracting value from the commons and renting it out on a scale never before seen, but that's the obvious one.)
I would say the same thing about hosting services on AWS. The corporate world does it because it just makes financial sense, but all they care about is outputs. I expect better from individuals who are trying to send a message.
AI is literally destroying the environment. How the FUCK do so many people not realise this. The data centres use massive amounts of water, their owners refuse to use renewables, they take up space on the power grid so it becomes impossible to build new housing, etc ad nauseum.
My God.
Yeah and so is animal agriculture…
Except you need food to eat, you don't need AI.
You don't need animal products to live, but I don't disagree with your point about food. At least it's actually for people.
AI is only for extracting the last bit of marrow from the bones of workers before making them completely obsolete.
Except you don't need to eat meat, you're just justifying the destruction you like. That's not to say that AI is anything close to as relevant as food, but the point still stands, meat production is destructive to the environment.
Something can be both useful and also destructive. Pretty sure people have done the maths and to approach the levels of efficiency that say meat has you'd be consuming a lot more calories. Similarly actual milk is better than soy milk.
This isn't to diss people that make the choice, but your quality of life will be worse, so yes I count that as those meat products being necessary, in spite of the environmental damage. I think there are better ways to fix that. Diversifying the meat industry, lowering food waste, etc. What seems more interesting at the moment is lab grown meat, since it has all the pros with none of the cons, except cost.
And I'm "pretty sure" that you are talking about what you WISH were true, not what you KNOW is true. Unfortunately, many people in this forum actually know what IS true, and you are so far off the mark, you would be humiliated if you actually grasped it.
What does meat's "efficiency" have to do with anything related to caloric intake? If I consume 1000 calories of meat or 1000 calories of vegetables, I've still consumed 1000 calories. I can only assume you mean I would have to eat a larger quantity of vegetables get the same amount of calories, and that's not the argument you think it is when people by and large consume too many calories and don't get enough micronutrients as it is.
I'm not even a full vegetarian, but even I know this is just self justification for what you want to do. One of my partners is a vegetarian, and I cut back on like 80-90% of my meat intake and my quality of life (like energy and general physical/mental wellbeing) is the same or better than it was a few years ago.
The only good points you made was about food waste and lab meat, the rest is just cope.
Sorry my thoughts got lost over multiple messages. I meant to get a similar amount of protein you need to consume more vegan food, especially calorie rich ones, most restaurants that I've seen when they have comparable items the vegan one had way more calories. I'd love to hear more of your experiences with this as someone who's gone through that, do you find it harder to stay in shape?
Also thank you for actually engaging with me on this, the other person was very volatile.
I have this feeling the vast majority of lemmy sells their labor to the most evil fucking corporations on the planet.
Why do you think we're all so interested in unions?
We live in an economy engineered to isolate us and make us work building up these empires for crumbs to be able to survive while slowly selling our souls sway. It's depressing.
Animal ag consumes more food than it produces!! JFC people! We grow several times more plants than humanity can possibly eat, and then we refine it through the bodies of vulnerable individuals and murder them. THAT'S NOT FOOD, that atrocity.
Anyone who consumes animals and bitches about AI's water use is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot -- but for whom?
It is food, get off your high horse if you plan on convincing anyone to back you. Topics and opinions are more nuanced than you want and people can't easily get boxed.
Yes I'm aware the food industry is one of the least efficient industries out there. No I don't think pure abolition is realistic or useful, as the products that come out of it can't be replaced, you can adjust your diet to get proteins and such from other places, but beans and nuts are going to rack up your calories a ton compared to meat.
And calling someone a useful idiot is bold while you're taking the pressure off of the ai industry which is not producing something useful for people (unlike meat which in spite of the failings of the industry is still helpful*) to say "but what about this other thing?!". We can deal with both, but one of those is definitely worse than the other and it's the one that we have existed without for thousands of years.
Where are you even getting this?? This is bonkers.
If you are getting enough calories from whole food plants, you are necessarily getting enough protein. If you eat nothing but rice, and you are getting enough calories, you are necessarily getting enough protein. "Protein" is a bullshit marketing angle. You are a victim of marketing.
Plants are nutrient-dense and calorie-poor. This is what you want for health. Animal flesh is exactly the opposite, plus contains things that actually kill you. The more meat a human eats, the younger a human dies and the more major diseases a human experiences. Just google: "meat all cause mortality" and educate yourself A LITTLE TINY BIT.
So if I grind up your children and eat it, they become "just food" and you should get off your high horse. If my industry changes the climate and you burn and freeze, it's "just food" and you should get over yourself. It's like saying, "It's just a joke, brah!" It's a childish attempt to evade responsibility for the consequences of your choices.
The things you are saying are so utterly uninformed, but you're so confidently incorrect. It's maddening. We both know for certain that you have never researched animal ag. Why are you trying to advance arguments when you know you have never researched it? What is motivating this stupid, arrogant behaviour?
The worse one is animal ag, by orders of magnitude!! Fucking do some research. Animal ag produces more climate change effects than ALL TRANSPORTATION ON EARTH COMBINED. Data centers don't even move the needle beside that. It's wildly hypocritical to criticize people's private AI use on the basis of water consumption while you consume animals. If you actually gave a shit about water use, you'd be looking to your own easily changed behaviour first. But this is just a conditioned response founded in ignorance. It's piling on and superstition. As soon as the subject of AI leaves your mind, you stop giving a single shit about water usage.
Username checks out.
We have had neither for more than a few decades. Animal ag as it exists today did not exist when I was born. There is several times more biomass in humans and farmed animals than all the wild land animals combined. This has not been going on for thousands of years, that is utterly uninformed and frankly amazingly unobservant.
You have no idea what you are talking about, but you're soooo confident. It's pointless to continue, you're going to keep making shit up because you are unwilling to process the feelings that come up when you consider that you might be wrong. Which, I am sure you can appreciate, would put blood on your hands.
My hoa forces us to water our lawns in a drought when it’s illegal to.
Celebs have planes and yachts they use on a whim.
The entire internet now uses some form of ai.
So you first. Get offline and go live in the fucking woods.
The HOA can't force you to break the law. If this is actually happening to you, talk to a lawyer!
Lawns take up more water than all the datacenters. Golf courses take up more water. Get a fucking grip. You better not be complaining about water usage with the flesh of vulnerable individuals still stuck between your teeth because animal ag consumes an order of magnitude more water, emits more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined, and gives NOTHING back but death and destruction.
Animal Ag gives us valuable food. Sure there are better alternatives out there but it literally gives us something we need to live.
And fucking golf?
Oh I'm well in agreement with that one. Huge waste of water for a sport that is almost always reserved for rich people to enjoy.
Keeps Trump away from the "launch nuclear missiles" button.
Animal ag consumes more food than it produces. It is a method for investors to refine cheap, plentiful, safe, and sustainable plant food into a harmful, addictive, expensive luxury product. Many of the costs are hidden from the consumer in the form of subsidies.
Western meat consumption has multiplied several fold in the last couple of generations. There is no "need" to that, there is only "want" and pure addiction.
To say it gives nothing back is simply a lie though. It literally provides one of the most important things people need. Food. Just because it's an inefficient method does not mean it provides nothing.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this. To produce meat, we have to feed animals. To feed a combined biomass that dwarfs all wild land animals on earth, we need to grow food with agriculture. Growing food to feed to animals and then consuming the meat results in a net loss of food as compared to just growing the food. Every step up the food chain represents enormous losses. Animal ag does not produce food. I know that is hard to accept but it's a unescapable thermodynamic reality.
We need food, but animal ag consumes more food than it produces. Grazing and other forms of "resource upcycling" cannot make up the massive difference.
Like I said, if they can fix that problem, then I'm fine with it. The resources it currently consumes is the reason why I kind of detest 4K and 8K AI videos. But I also kind of detest 4K and 8K TVs and monitors. We don't need that many god damn pixels. Unless you're a bird of prey, 4K is a complete waste of electricity.
I mostly agree, but even if LLMs were 100% correct all the time (they're not), there are still some pretty serious ethical issues surrounding it. It is up to each person to decide if they find that acceptable or not.
I disagree with the moral panic about AI stealing things. They're not Xerox machines. It does exactly what humans do except faster. Before AI, this YouTuber was reading a bunch of stuff, "stealing" things from it, and putting it back together in a different way, just like AI, except he actually understands what he's reading.
I am concerned though about the resources it uses. But I don't see that as an ethical issue. That's more of a logistical issue. If they can make AI that doesn't drink up Lake Michigan and doesn't make the electrical grid scream, then more power to it.
My biggest concern whether people are for it or against it is that they don't think it's Skynet, or Data from Star Trek. It's just a big dumb machine, a gigantic MENACE matchbox computer.
My complaint is at least before the individual stealing the idea and recombining it was the one getting paid.
Now that's just a SaaS that benefits a handful of overvalued superscalers. They get to sit on their horde of data and charge for access.
This makes it sound like it can do anything humans can do, but you're actually wrong in a lot of different ways. Generative AI is a reconstruction machine. It takes the things it "knows" (because they don't know anything, they're just lots and lots of coefficients in giant matrices), and attempt to reconstruct from an incomplete data point.
They are actually a lot closer to Xerox machines than they are to humans. If you train gen AI on one thing, it will only know that one thing, and it will only recreate that one thing. It could never do more than that. Humans just do not fundamentally work that way. Like, if you want to say most stories are recombinations of other stories, fine, but that is wrong. There is an origin that was created by a human. Not everything is stolen.
There are many, many issues with gen AI, from the resources it uses, to its use in surveillance, to the fact that it is still wrong on fundamental ideas. It's just kinda shit technology and the people that think it is awesome are usually the dumbest fucking morons I have ever met, and that is terrifying. Man, just learning the math and science behind it and how it works should be the bar, but none of them know how it fucking works or why it cannot improve without using more and more resources.
They literally stole the training data. Everything after that is fruit of the poisonous tree.
According to the article, he used terminology associated with LLMs when answering a question.
He denies that he was reading an AI generated answer and instead says that he just uses LLMs too much and it bled over into his speech.
Uhhh
There are ethical problems about using the fruits of stolen labour to enrich yourself.
Wait, the controversy is that he said something that was maybe AI generated or maybe it wasn't or maybe his use of AI rubbed off on his talking patterns? I kinda feel like he's th type that would admit to reading off responses generated from AI.
Just open the article, that will clear your «maybe».
What a bizarre idea. Why would anyone want to do that?
I read it before writing. The article just brings up he said something that sounds like maybe it was written by AI.
apparently he got caught reading AI texts, people became immediately suspicious.
I read the article and the "getting caught part" seems to just be that he said something that seemed like it was possibly written by an AI
Why did you do that?
The rich white man-?
Untrustworthy???
I'm shocked, truly
If there's a trustworthy human being, hank green is probably up there in top contenders...
@Grok is this true
Pretty sure both him and John have described themselves as rich.
Like they're not big tech CEO rich, but they are rich enough that they've said they don't need to worry about income.
He's rich
Or that he is such a loser, he has to pretend like his skin colour is something important.
it is wierd, alot of influencers are rich , or well off. i think he put white to make think like its a r ace thing.
All hail Hank of Green, King of slop
I stroke a had