Sophie Labelle | Instagram | Bluesky

Transcriptfour frame comic.

first frame shows a typical AI poster that says : All chatgpt flyers look the same, especially with this font! the text above it reads : I won’t go to your event if the poster was made by AI.

second frame shows a still frame from a Hank Green youtube video. text above reads : I won’t read your post or email and I won’t watch your video if they were made with AI.

third frame shows an AI restaurant poster of burgers and chicken in a window. text reads : I won’t patronize your shop or restaurant if it is advertised with AI.

last frame shows an MS paint window with badly written : Your bad art is better than AI slop. text reads : if you can’t take the time or make the effort to interact with me yourself, then why should I do it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 223 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (85 children)

The Hank Green bandwagon hate really fucking irritates me.

The man, and his brother, have done decades of charity work. Raised millions for all sorts of progressive causes (Pizzamas). Created completely free online educational course videos that I know a large percentage here used in highschool/college (Crash Course). Produced thousands of science videos and topics (SciShow). The pair of them spend their time trying to educate and improve lives in any way they can (VlogBrothers), and give back for everything they have.

Hank makes a video that appears to have AI assistance, and people are ready to drop them on the spot like none of that matters.

Hank even apologized for his reliance on it. Gave receipts that it was never used in any of his other works. Used his experience as a cautionary tale of how AI it take over a process, and promised to do better.

Doesn't matter..... his previous decades of charity. His lifelong commitment to education... irrelevant... people want to hang him out to dry.

The VlogBrothers stretch themselves over complex topics, educational materials, charity events... everything.... FOR FREE. I don't blame Hank for trying to streamline and organize things. I think the man has taken on way more than any one person should do. I think the people jumping on him to make him some kind of pariah are nothing but self-rightious douchebag fuckheads that haven't done even a fraction of good as those two brothers have, and they know it. They want to use this one thing as though it somehow makes them superior, like they ever did a goddamn thing for anyone. Like they could even begin to understand that level of work and charity to do all of that.

The man made a mistake doing too much and these cretins are tearing him down for clout. It's fucking disgusting. Decades of positivity without controversy and yet it has afforded him no grace from the people who readily consume his content.

  • source
  • hideshow 85 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 39 points 2 months ago (29 children)

    What a terrible argument of false equivalence.

    Why do AI advocates always assume the generative auto-complete machine is the future? The tech was made through theft of IP and forced on a public that doesn’t want it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Not just Lemmy. A good numbe of people don’t want AI.

    [1]

    [2]

    [3]

    [4]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I included the last article as to not skew information towards a particular viewpoint.

    One thing to note is the first couple links focus on adoption rates and hard numbers of users, where the last article is just an opinion poll.

    The first question shows about a 50/50% split in on people’s view towards AI, which has steadily grown in distrust since the 2021. It’s likely to assume that pattern will continue and distrust will tip towards the majority based on what’s shown.

    The second shows people overwhelmingly think it negatively impacts people’s ability to think creatively.

    The third shows people overwhelmingly think AI will harm all industries except when it comes to healthcare.

    The fourth shows most teens have used with many turning to it for homework including some using it to do all of their homework. That is a very concerning poll figure considering the harm AI has been shown to have on the learning process.

    I’m not going to spell the whole article out, read it yourself. But it doesn’t paint a positive picture towards AI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Again, false equivalence. But sure city planning has been built around a car centric approach forcing you to use a car. Nothing however (except some short sighted middle managers maybe) is forcing you to use AI, or more specifically to use it to generate slop art.

    It seems to me you do care about how people feel, or more specifically how you feel about it considering I linked stats showing the majority of Americans are not using AI, but sure throw out sweeping generalizations based on your opinion and nothing backing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    AI is definitely harmful in healthcare. Recently a major hospital chain in New York is proposing replacing radiologists with AI (https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/radiology/nyc-health-hospitals-ceo-ai-could-replace-many-radiologists/). Turns out, AI is not adept at recognizing even simple visual patterns and shapes, but through a phenomenom called "mirage", it pretends it is, even guessing correctly at xray intepretations on par with human radiologist even when presented with NO FILM. See here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21687. From that study, the most extreme "...example, a text-only model trained without the X-ray images achieved the top score on a chest X-ray question-answering benchmark. Fortunately, some doctors are resisting the switch on the grounds of patient safety (https://www.doctorscouncil.org/news/doctors-council-response-to-comments-made-by-mitch-katz-on-ai-replacing-radiologists).

    What is also interesting is Dr. Katz decribes his hospital system-ie, NYC public health) as being especially suitable for the replacement. Katz's proposal isn't simply “AI is better than radiologists, therefore replace them.” There is also an economic and access argument underneath it: if AI can perform some radiology work at much lower cost, a safety-net system may see it as a way to stretch scarce medical resources. But that also creates an interesting question: is it appropriate to use a population that already has fewer healthcare resources as the place where a highly consequential AI substitution is implemented?

    Already, populations such as the incarcerated are seeing their therapists replaced with chatbots. Though some may not mind or even see it as preverable to dealing with a human, I see, once again, the destitute and disadvantaged being cheated with inferior and shoddy goods.

    Personally, i jettisoned the healthcare complex years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    And with the constant improvements, this number is only set to grow.

    It isn't going to constantly improve, though. We're facing model collapse, and nobody has a solution for this problem.

    As more and more AI-generated content floods the public internet, more and more of that content will end up as training data for AI. Exacerbating this, quality publications are largely blocking AI bots, for entirely understandable reasons, which means less, and less higher-quality content is being used to train the next generation of models.

    For example, researchers have noted that the LAION-5B dataset, used to train Stable Diffusion and many other models, already contains synthetic images created by earlier AI models. This is the equivalent of a child learning to draw solely by copying the images made by younger children – not a scenario which is likely to improve quality.

    In fact, researchers already have a name for the inevitable bad outcome: “model collapse”. In this case, the content generated by AI’s stops improving, and starts to get worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 10 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Imagine you’re a 6-year old right now. Someone tells you, yeah, you could spend the next bullshit quantity of years learning to do basic math until you bitch about not knowing how to do taxes later in life. Or you could just use a fucking calculator that hands you the answers.

    Same thing with pen -> calculator-> computer -> phone

    Your argument is a shit one.

    AI isn’t progress.

    AI robs people of their ability to think critically and creatively.

    If it was just you dumbing yourself down I wouldn’t care, but it’s not. It’s a machine that steals others hard work and mashes it all together while it demands land and precious resources to feed it all so you can feel better about your lack of ability. It’s a masturbation machine for the unmotivated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

    The difference is schools teach you how to get to the answer on your own and a calculator becomes a tool.

    AI does not and just feeds you its best guess, passes it off as fact, and people take it at face value. It’s a glorified auto-complete machine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Calculators are totally deterministic, which is the opposite of how LLMs work. If you put 1+1 into a calculator a thousand times, it's going to give you the answer "2" every single time. You can't say the same for an LLM. You can't predict with certainty what answer it's going to give you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    That doesn’t mean the answer is right.

    Are you saying that there are some cases where 1 + 1 does not equal 2?

    It is a tool, but it doesn’t always give you the right answer if you don’t use it right. Exactly like an LLM.

    As I said, an LLM will give you different outputs for the same input. It's non-deterministic. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're "using it right". That's just how LLMs function. Whether or not it gives you the right answer is a dice roll. Sometimes the odds are very good, and sometimes they aren't, but you never have a 100% chance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    Sure, what's next? "Hey, also, we made this AI robot that can assemble all of your Legos for you, so you don't have to do that, either! Think of all the time you'll save!"

    Drawing isn't some obstacle to making a picture. It's the point. People enjoy drawing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, but no one HAS to learn to draw any more.

    Nobody ever HAD to learn to draw, just like nobody ever HAD to learn to play the flute or how to make paper cranes.

    My entire life, if I couldn’t figure out how to draw it, the picture stayed locked in my head. Now, I just dictate it into a prompt.

    Why, though? What motivates you to make the picture?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    the vast majority of our descendants will use rocks after AI-driven missile detection system thinks a bird is an incoming nuke during a period of extreme geopolitical tensions on the grounds that most people have to choose between buying food or paying water and electricity bills

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah, go educate yourself a basic amount please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    Doesn't matter..... his previous decades of charity. His lifelong commitment to education... irrelevant... people want to hang him out to dry.

    that's algorithm driven content platforms for you. youtube recommends to most people videos where people are raging, over the normal content of the channel. even people who don't know him get to see it, or otherwise hear about the rage. then, since many are not watching the new videos youtube will recommend them to fewer people than before. meanwhile the rest of the internet only gets to know about the rage, and decades of good work and charity does not matter at all, because that's the boring past nobody gets to know of. even the original viewer base gets reduced, because many see this fuckup but few remember what the creator is like actually. and the algorithm will surely not help to remember by showing the old videos.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    100% agree. People are shitting on Hank because they have literally nothing going on. They've made a hobby out of being outraged, and as a result have nothing more meaningful to contribute.

    If they took the time to look into it, they'd realize the line they're using to claim that AI writes his scripts was actually something he himself simply said. Not only did he not outsource his writing to AI, he's honest enough that when people incorrectly accused him of this he disclosed that he does at times use it to aid his research. Not that anyone blathering about it values honesty enough to care.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 2 months ago* (8 children)

    Yeah, the hate is unwarranted.

    As always, there’s people who will basically take the it’s evil no matter what path. If they feel that heavily about AI, they probably shouldn’t be using anything that uses Linux. Which is basically just about everything on the web.

    Hank was using it to create some games and do research for his videos. An AI is really good at creating code and for that purpose making a small game. AI can help you research things by finding and searching for things relevant to what you want, but then you need to rely on actually understanding what is being cited.

    There are obvious downsides to AI and all the data centers and everything but going about and saying no matter why AI will never use is just a fool errand.

    It’s worth push pushing back on data centers and what not And I am involved in several of those movements. But AI bad is just a stupid take, Especially when Hank is using it for all intents and purposes pretty responsibly compared to some people at larger companies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    An AI is really good at creating code

    I disagree with this statement but at the same time it's probably good enough for whatever he used it for tho, i usually hate vibe coding but in this case i don't care much, he overall did plenty of good and it's not like all his content is AI made, (would've more appreciated if he paid someone to do it tho)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    it’s probably good enough for whatever he used it for tho

    The whole problem is because it wasn't good enough for whatever he used it for tho. It fried his brain and made his videos worse. That's not good enough, that's bad enough. Thankfully, Hank is smart and experienced, so he recognised the problem early enough. Hope it will be so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Two things.

    1. AI is really good at creating code if the person prompting it is smart
    2. You are over-estimating the quality of code being written by humans. The vast majority (mine included) is garbage.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    There is a difference between hating him and holding him accountable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

    he has been held to account. He already spoke on it. Yet that's not stopping the outrage mob needing a villain to shovel out rage content for clicks.

    Because at this point, with this comic, it's not about holding him to account. That's done. At this point, it's farming for clout. Tying to dunk on a man with decades of charity and education because it might get a few likes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    It is illogical to assume that making people aware of communicative failures in science is done for the sake of clout. Making people aware of a failure in public science communication is a good and responsible thing, even after the event.

    It is reasonable to still share the comic because the overall point is valid—even if he already apologized—both because sharing knowledge is good, and because the choice of whether to still watch Hank after his apology is individual; just because you and I forgive him doesn't make it unfair not to trust him as a result of this (I take the stance that I will continue to watch his content as long as he does not repeat this mistake: forgiveness is not permission, after all).

    To use his failing as an example of this negative behavior, or to make the choice not to watch his content because of his AI use, is fair. To assume sharing the fact that he did and a resultant choice of the comic author (to not watch that one tainted video, which I also will not watch) were for clout is not fair or reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Greens are treasures for humanity, and they did a lot of great. But previous achievements shouldn't make you immune to criticism. And this is exact topic that should cause harsh criticisms. Hank is an educator, and the only good educator is one that has absolute trust of his audience. Right now his reaction to a backlash is exactly ideal one so I have good hope for the future, and I'm afraid it might not be so if the backlash wasn't as harsh.
    The whole reason Hank is so great is that his team does proper research, and they're not afraid of showing their mistakes and correct them. If they start relying on LLMs, all of that can be thrown out of the window, you couldn't trust anything anymore, LLM's whole thing is that it breaks your brain into relying on it, as evident. A pop science video isn't good at all, if the viewers will have to double check every point.
    So this is exactly correct reaction that should be modeled for all such occasions in the future, from both parties actually. And in Green's case, their previous legacy gives them enough social credits, that I totally trust him to be smart enough to reevaluate his processes and come up with safeguards, and if he actually does it, this will award him more trust.
    Don't conflate accountability with blind hate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    People have been trained by social media to hate pretty much anything on command these days. It doesn't really matter what or who it is, there is always an audience to hate this or that. You'd think that at some point people would get that this is class warfare, but no.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    It doesn't matter what else you do or did, if you make something with AI, I don't want it. I won't say if he is a good or a bad man, but that was a bad video. Future videos may be good, if they are human constructed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    From my understanding only some research was done with Ai, no? Not any actual parts of the video

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    If that's the case, then as long as the "AI research" was thoroughly checked by a human, then I can't imagine how he'd have even been caught using AI. So, it's strange that he was caught.

    If it wasn't thoroughly checked by a human, then that's a pretty big mistake... but if it was actually only done for one video, I would view this as something that could be a learning experience more than something that deserves cancellation. Still a huge mistake, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    If that's the case, then as long as the "AI research" was thoroughly checked by a human, then I can't imagine how he'd have even been caught using AI. So, it's strange that he was caught.

    I just did a search on it and apparently someone said that a particular sentence in the video sounded like it was written by AI. He said that it wasn’t written by AI and in fact wasn’t written at all as it was ad-libbed during filming. He then confessed that he has been relying too much on Chat GPT for research and that his script did sound too much like AI.

    Kotaku article

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    The more that people are exposed to generative AI, the more they're going to sound like it. Just like how kids pick up the mannerisms of their parents and of their friends.

    One sentence sounding like AI might even be something you'd pick up from a friend who used AI and started talking like that, so it could even happen to a person who never used AI themselves.

    I'm sure this sort of thing is already happening, and I'm sure it will only get worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

    It was a very niche topic about crocheting or something, I think? The problem is that he didn't know about it, so he was researching it as part of the script. And because he didn't know about it, he didn't realize that some of the information was wrong. Well, the crochet community knew it was wrong, because of course they'd know more about the topic. So that got people questioning how Hank could have come to this wrong information which led to people further dissecting the video and concluding that it was AI assisted.

    So, Hank, a human, looks to learn about a topic he wants to talk about it. He, a human, does check the material, but he's not really qualified to know if the material is right (hence wanting to learn about it).

    I think what he should do (and I think he kind of touched on this, but I don't know where) is he should reach out to experts in that field to verify his scripts. Rather than just trying to verify them himself. Especially if its about a topic he's not super confident in.

    But most importantly... none of that makes the man out to be some kind mega villain, AI-slop loving, earth killing hypocrite that people are making him out to be. Just a dude who wanted to talk about something and made a mistake. And yet people want to run him through some kind of humiliation ritual and penance. It's sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    What you're describing doesn't count as checking the material to me. If I was tasked with double-checking AI research on a topic where I had zero knowledge, I would use a search engine to find some reliable-looking source that said the same thing as the AI.

    If you find a second source, then you should be able to point at that page to day where you got it from.

    If the fact is so esoteric that you can't find any reliable second sources, then you have to start questioning where did the AI get the information in the first place, and suspect that the facts were hallucinations.

    To me, that's what you have to do to check AI. I do this process even if I am just googling something for myself and am presented with an AI summary that seems on-point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    If you cared enough to actually find out what happened instead of mindlessly parroting the Twitter mob, you would know that not a single word Hank said was written by AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)