![Your bad art is better than AI slop [Sophie Labelle]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c2feca8b-da2b-4e53-9ec3-04b436e86a0d.webp){kind=link}
Sophie Labelle | Instagram | Bluesky
Transcript
four 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?
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.
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.
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.
Yea well, anyone can come in after the fact and be like “Well if it was me, I would have earned my honorary doctorates researching the topic beforehand to verify it”…
Not very helpful. And it’s easy for you to say that because you’re not a position to prove it. So… yay you, you sure would do that, good for you.
I’m not gonna play “move the goal posts” with you all day.
My original comment explicitly used the term “thoroughly checked” because I wanted it to be obvious what I meant. When you got the wrong idea, I simply explained it more clearly. That’s not “moving the goalposts.” I simply didn’t think anybody would see the term “thoroughly checked” and imagine the sort of half-assed process you spoke of.
that’s textbook moving the goal posts…
You’re just here to engage in bad faith bullshit. You act like some authority on the matter while having to prove nothing. Nothing will appease this made up bar you set because you already have a foregone conclusion. If anyone manages to meet these conditions, you raise it. Meanwhile couch it all with a tone of pseudo intellectual with a holier than thou attitude (see: redditor).
All you really are is a slimy manipulative concern troll.
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
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.
It wasn’t actually “bad” research that triggered it. It was the absolute INSANE fact that a single goddamn sentence of Hanks sounded like AI. Of course, Hanks videos trained all these models, so that’s not actually surprising to anyone with a brain. Which most fervent AI haters lack.
He made the mistake of treating his audience like grown adults, and explained the situation honestly. He uses AI for some research, but the text in question was written by humans. Now the witch hunt was off to the races. Anything not entirely perfect he had done (like the crocheting thing) was ripe picking to pretend that no single human had ever made a mistake. Surely, it must be the evil AI. Surely, Hank must be lieing.
Ironically, Hank should’ve lied. He treated an online hate mob like grown adults, which is always a mistake. They never actually reward honesty or accountability or positive change. All they want is outrage and hate.
“so that’s not actually surprising to anyone with a brain. Which most fervent AI haters lack.”
Oh the irony.
If it’s a single sentence, then you don’t really have to explain anything about how it happened. There are countless reasons why a single sentence might sound like AI despite being written by a human.
I personally don’t agree with the rabidly anti-AI people, but I do think their perspective is important, because there is a real possibility of some worst-case outcomes here. Without the zealots, I think a lot of people would simply ignore things right up until the point that they lost their jobs.