![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?
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.
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.
From my understanding only some research was done with Ai, no? Not any actual parts of the video
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 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.
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.
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
There is not much to interpret: in the video, he reads directly a prompt response.