YouTuber Hank Green Is Facing a Fan Revolt Over His AI Use

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.

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.