- cross-posted to:
- popularculture@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- popularculture@hexbear.net
You must log in or register to comment.
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…
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.
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
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.
Hes supposed to be a credible source, hes an educator, hes the modern day Bill Nye.
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.
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?
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.
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.
That’s pretty disappointing, watched his content a ton years ago. I feel like Ai has that reverse Midas touch.
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.
If you’re just going to use an LLM, why should I listen to you? I can just get lies straight from the clanker.
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 👺
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.
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.
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.
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?
There’s nothing wrong with using AI
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.
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.
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.
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.
If a company unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data, we don’t say that there are legitimate concerns using books.
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?
the problem that people … 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.
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.
Off course we say its a legitimate concern if someone unethically steals data and publishes a book with that data
We have a legitimate concern with that particular book, not all 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?
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.
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.
Uhhh
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.
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.
They literally stole the training data. Everything after that is fruit of the poisonous tree.
It does exactly what humans do except faster.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’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?
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.
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.
but beans and nuts are going to rack up your calories a ton compared to meat.
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.
The things you are saying are so utterly uninformed, but you’re so confidently incorrect. It’s maddening.
We can deal with both, but one of those is definitely worse than the other
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.
Username checks out.
it’s the one that we have existed without for thousands of years.
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.
I have this feeling the vast majority of lemmy sells their labor to the most evil fucking corporations on the planet.
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, 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.
So do you retreat from the claim that it gives us something we need to live? It gives us something we want, but that harms both the consumerr and everyone else on Earth.
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.
There are ethical problems about using the fruits of stolen labour to enrich yourself.
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.
It even makes up fake scientific papers as “references”
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.
You’re immune to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect!
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?
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.
Let’s be honest, most sources online are not 100% accurate.
Most scientific reviews cite papers in which only the title was read, and often the titles are not justified in the papers.
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.
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 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.
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?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.10791 yep (no Fable score here)
Is he.
