Maybe not that interesting for everyone here, but I found no better community for this.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Honestly, it isn’t the AI so much as it is the suspension that rules that apply to us should also apply to AI. They are barely legal companies getting away with murder due to the residual power of a corrupt empire in decline.

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Much the same as blockchain - it could have been exciting and fun, but it was immediately put to work to exploit people, and in the end that’s what the tools effectively were.

  • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I want an ad / DNS blocklist for AI slop. I want to not even be able to go to HiSToRiAn AsLeEp In ThE WoOdS channels on my networks and devices

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    6 days ago

    And of course, the video was preempted by an AI slop ad of a talking monkey wearing a neck brace.

  • Eh-I@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I have noticed that I don’t click on their videos as fast. Used to be that as soon as you see a video in the feed it was an instant click.

    • BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think the topics they make videos on these days feel more gimicy and click baity so I kinda avoid them

      • a_postmodern_hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        100%. The recent videos all seem like they’re ragebait (‘alcohol is awesome’ springs to mind).

        They could be good, I haven’t watched them. if they’re targeting people who respond to that tone then it’s not for me.

        It’s a shame. I liked the earlier videos on ant colonies and strange matter and stars and stuff.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          I get the frustration, but it does actually cost money to make content, especially high effort content like this.

          Add on top of that the fact that the people involved need to be able to eat, have a home, provide for their families, have a life.

          People would complain if they were sponsored by some shitty VPN provider or the like, and also complain about them trying to sell merch. I certainly wouldn’t work for free, so I don’t see why they should have to.

          It’s not really that hard to do a couple of key presses to skip ahead, either. It’s what I do.

          • SpicyLengthiness@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Honestly, I don’t care. They chose to “make content”. If they aren’t making enough, get a real job.

  • tino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 days ago

    Kurzgesagt is annoyingly techno-solutionist but now that they are a big target of AI slop (their artistic style being heavily copied), they complain. That’s good I guess.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      What is the problem with techno-solutionism? Is it just that under capitalism techno-solutionism often results in corruption? Is the development of lemmy not techno-solutionism (to the enshittification of reddit)?

  • YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    I watched this with my son last night. Quite enjoyed it. I find the cadences of the narrator’s voice oddly soothing, although ironically it sounds very like an AI voice.

  • Kissaki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 days ago

    I feel like the title doesn’t match the content.

    The video gives an elaborate description on their evaluation of “AI” and it’s influence on the Internet at large. And then they conclude with “we’ll continue like before” directly contradicting the title.

    Feels disingenuous. And ironic after they talked about their extensive investments into fact checking.

    • Jhex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      The video gives an elaborate description on their evaluation of “AI” and it’s influence on the Internet at large. And then they conclude with “we’ll continue like before” directly contradicting the title.

      You missed the entire point of the video.

      The claims are simple:

      • in order to make this type of videos, they need to be able to reliable fact check

      • data on the internet is increasingly polluted by AI slop, making it harder to distinguish fact from slop

      • for now, they have no choice but to continue while being extra vigilant… but eventually, if things do not change, they will be unable to perform

      It’s the exact same situation about climate change… we need to act now, most of us will suffer otherwise but for now we continue on living while trying to adjust where we can (recycling, reusing, less/no meat, etc) even if we know that will not be enough long term.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Also, presuming they are sincere and put in all that effort, they are competing with other sources that have no such discipline and they are able to flood the field and grab eyeballs faster than they could.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Not the guy you’re answering to, but I kind of agree with him, the point is fuzzy and the title is clickbaity. With sucha title I expected they would present numbers and figures.

        • Jhex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          well, it may be a matter of context and tolerance here but I find the concept they are presenting is axiomatic and as such would not require any further explanation:

          They use the internet to research their videos… the internet is getting more and more polluted with false narratives… ergo, it is becoming harder to research for their videos. Without good source, there are no videos.

          If I tell you plants need water to exist but each season brings less and less rain year after year… would you say a title such as “drought is killing the plants” clickbaity?

          • Tja@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            I assumed they don’t do their research using random crap on “the internet”, but reliable experts, peer reviewed papers and such. No specific claims about topics, funding, time or anything. And again, no numbers, so hard to argue objectively.

            • Jhex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              I assumed they don’t do their research using random crap on “the internet”, but reliable experts, peer reviewed papers and such

              Yes, that is what they claim. But I am sure you have seen how hard it is now to find something even if you know exactly what you are looking for. It’s not like there are 2 libraries online for anything you need, right? You start researching about topic A and read that Dr XYZ did a study on this so you look for that study… just to find out Dr XYZ does not and has never existed.

              No specific claims about topics, funding, time or anything. And again, no numbers, so hard to argue objectively.

              So you want a specific number as to how many bad sources they are now forcing to discard because they turned out to be AI slop?

                • jj4211@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Those metrics aren’t any more trustworthy than their own subjective word anyway. If they wanted to say they took more time then they could delay at their whim anyway. If they said their production costs increased, then again, they could spend the money to fit the narrative. On those particular points objective evidence is so susceptible to being gamed that it isn’t really more valuable than their subjective reporting.

                  Numbers of subscribers/views could be a bit more informative, but then people inclined to disbelieve would claim it’s because of any number of other reasons not because of AI slop.

                • Jhex@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  it’s not that type of channel… they never do more than a percentage or a rate.

                  their thing is to explain concepts in a way a young audience can digest them

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          Killing in this case sounds like the content is becoming harder and harder to create, which they lay out the subjective case for, but that wouldn’t be exactly something they could use figures to present, since it’s so subjective.

          The one point they might have been able to show with numbers would be the emergence of AI slop ‘infotainment animations’ diluting the audience, but that wasn’t exactly the biggest point of the video and it might be a bit early to be able to demonstrate statistically credible evidence on that one.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Do you think if we pool every AI in the world it will be able to figure out the difference between its and it’s? Seems unlikely.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      5 days ago

      The channel hat always been disingenuous. It’s not the first video they have where they develop a well written essay that has conclusions that make no sense with the information presented. It’s the theater of research without any of the substance. The editors just do whatever they want, under the expectations that the writing team will support their preconceived notion.

      They’re an entertainment channel, not a science communication channel. They have said some awful, totally not fact supported stuff in the past.

      • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        5 days ago

        As far as science channels go, you’ve got SpaceTime for college students, Veritasium for high schoolers, and Kurzgesagt for newborn infants or maybe a smart dog. It’s probably at about the right level if you want to explain science to an Australian Shepherd.

  • M137@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 days ago

    It’s definitely not only that.
    I and, from what I’ve seen discussed here and elsewhere online, many other people have stopped watching the channel because of many valid reasons completely unrelated to AI. I haven’t watched a single one of their videos for years, something changed in their content and I just lost interest. Then there have been several controversial events throughout the years, both objective bad stuff and subjective things that made many loose interest and faith in their integrity. They definitely became one of the many channels that lost it’s way because of how big it got. The animations became too “perfect” in a weird way, they lost their personality and they also got scared of having real opinions so they started doing this “all sides” shit and that’s when I tapped out. I’ve tried to watch new videos from them about once every 6 months or so, but I can’t even make it past a minute without completely loosing interest.

    • 46_and_2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Completely agree, their channel has changed a lot and seems to be producing videos on a conveyor belt now, while before they used to do one video or maximum two a month. Now it seems they produce a video a week, and interesting topics are more hard to come by.

      When they said that they’re “almost 70 full time people and a lot of freelancers on top” I almost did a spit take. I know there are big channels and operations on YT, but this seems such an unreasonable amount of employees for this type of channel and audience. No wonder it feels oversaturated and overdone, they probably feel the need to put more and more videos to keep their huge team and expences afloat.

      Just find a sustainable pace and team size, don’t go the corporate way of growth over all.

  • Auth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    5 days ago

    I dont think its AI Slop thats “killing the channel” if that statement is even remotely true its due to more and more of their videos being slop sci low information videos. The target audience must be stoners who want to watch something that is visually appealing and feels educational

    • PKscope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      For what it’s worth, I kinda agree. Maybe I’ve changed but I feel like their content over the last year or two is nowhere near as good as it was.

      Maybe I’ve just had a change in taste, though.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      You can’t really call it slop just because you disagree with their views and representations of things.

      Their stuff is carefully researched and sourced, human crafted and open to critique. Whether they’re correct in their assessments or not is of course up for debate, but it’s good craftsmanship and they show their work.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Have you ever watched the channel? They even made a video outlining their process which takes months of work.

      • kalkulat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        5 days ago

        Nope, and this one is NOT going to change that … can’t take all that cutesy animation and the fast-flowing babble for 2 minutes, let alone 12

          • 46_and_2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 days ago

            Or they just don’t like the way Kurzgesagt presents their information. Just like they wrote. Different folks, different strokes.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              I didn’t say they have to like it, that would be silly.

              I’m criticising them for making an incorrect statement, being corrected on it, then acting extremely proud of being ignorant of the facts, and committing to not informing themselves.