• CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    39 minutes ago

    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.

  • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 hour ago

    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?

    • Starya67@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 minutes ago

      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.

    • Tekdeb@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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.

      • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        51 minutes ago

        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.

  • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

    • Zephyr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • KryptonBlur@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        55 minutes ago

        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.

  • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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?

    • dismay3915@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

        • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          55 minutes ago

          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.

    • steelplatedmech@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • Fushuan [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

      • MrQuallzin@pie.eyeofthestorm.place
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

    • Sinthesis@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

  • k0e3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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!

  • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • Starya67@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 minutes ago

      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!

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

      • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It’s 90% right 90% of the time. But the most important part is the last 10%.

          No LLM model system card claims such high rate as 90%. Fable claims in its system card, what, 40% hallucination rate?

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • soratoyuki@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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?

        • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.

        • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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.

  • bjc@scribe.disroot.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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

    • postman@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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…

      • bjc@scribe.disroot.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

          • bss03@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 hours ago

            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.

  • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

      • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          24 minutes ago

          …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

    • 5wim@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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])

    • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      He seems fairly prone to ego stroking, which internet goers would typically label as narcissistic.

      Kind of the target audience for the sycophant machine

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        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.”

  • soratoyuki@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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 here is too much. Everyone’s getting high off their own supply.

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

      • SillyDude@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        When gen AI hits a job market that doesn’t exist thanks to AI, I wonder what’s going to happen.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Glad he’s recognizing the problem and trying to get help. Instant gratification is a hell of a drug.

  • binarytobis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.