Yet people, even Science Communicators like Hank Green on YouTube have been making claims like this. In a recent video on his personal channel he claimed “AI” will only get better from here. On Sci Show he claimed GPT could compete in the Maths Olympiad.
I find it weird you’re criticizing Hank Green in your comment but use 2 links that don’t directly reference him at all and in fact the 2nd link uses AI generated art and summaries of the article. Hank Green has had a varied and nuanced take on AI that largely lands on it being a negative for society
I gave the two specific statements that I’m saying are incorrect and provided evidence for that. You feeling weird about me criticising him for endorsing statements that (the links show) aren’t true. I never said all his statements are incorrect. My problem is his beliefs in the two statements I’m pointing out. Hence pointing them out.
You’re putting words in the mouth of someone uninvolved in the conversation. Hank Green wasn’t in anything you posted and you’re slamming him like he is. I posted evidence in contradiction of your baseless statement
I’m putting words in your mouth? You’re raising AI art and data centers when that’s nothing to do with the two statements I’m talking about.
…and no, the things I posted aren’t responding to Hank Green (I never said they were), they’re about the specific statements. You can go to the latest SciShow episode about Ai and find the Maths Olympiad statement.
You’re doing this because you want to talk past me to show boat for up votes. I don’t care about that man.
You can goto his personal channel and find his lastes video on AI and find his statement saying AI will only get better from here.
You want to have some dumb internet debate and pretend like I’m against Hank Green or pro AI or some shit.
I pointed out two statements that are clearly wrong, that Hank Green is endorsing as true.
I don’t give a shit about all this other crap you’ve raised to muddy the waters. So piss off.
I wrote a comment along these lines, he brought up “agents” in that SciShow episode without directly saying the word, and modern agents are really just a bunch of scripts tied together with an LLM. It’s not that complicated, and they absolutely suck at performing tasks that aren’t narrowly defined. Like you can’t throw it at some issues on GitHub and expect it to actually come up with solutions. People have tried that and the success rates are absurdly low.
SciShow can be incredibly sloppy at times. They had this episode about knitting a while back and lots of knitters basically fired back with “…did you guys try to talk to knitters about this?”
Hank Green seems really affable, it’s hard not to like him (knowing very little about him) but SciShow really needs more rigorous fact checking.
Yep, as the joke suggests:
GPT-4 didn’t ace the bar exam after all, MIT research suggests — it didn’t even break the 70th percentile
Yet people, even Science Communicators like Hank Green on YouTube have been making claims like this. In a recent video on his personal channel he claimed “AI” will only get better from here. On Sci Show he claimed GPT could compete in the Maths Olympiad.
…it’s NOT able to compete in the maths Olympiad.
Hank Green is spreading misinformation.
I find it weird you’re criticizing Hank Green in your comment but use 2 links that don’t directly reference him at all and in fact the 2nd link uses AI generated art and summaries of the article. Hank Green has had a varied and nuanced take on AI that largely lands on it being a negative for society
Here’s him calling it a bubble: https://youtu.be/Q0TpWitfxPk
Him saying AI generated videos are bad: https://youtu.be/Vz0oQ0v0W10
Talking about AI datacenters being a problem: https://youtu.be/39YO-0HBKtA
All within the past 2 months
He’s got another one explaining how he moved his stock specifically to hedge against the collapse of the US economy.
I gave the two specific statements that I’m saying are incorrect and provided evidence for that. You feeling weird about me criticising him for endorsing statements that (the links show) aren’t true. I never said all his statements are incorrect. My problem is his beliefs in the two statements I’m pointing out. Hence pointing them out.
You’re putting words in the mouth of someone uninvolved in the conversation. Hank Green wasn’t in anything you posted and you’re slamming him like he is. I posted evidence in contradiction of your baseless statement
Truly, what the fuck are you talking about?
I’m putting words in your mouth? You’re raising AI art and data centers when that’s nothing to do with the two statements I’m talking about.
…and no, the things I posted aren’t responding to Hank Green (I never said they were), they’re about the specific statements. You can go to the latest SciShow episode about Ai and find the Maths Olympiad statement.
You’re doing this because you want to talk past me to show boat for up votes. I don’t care about that man.
You can goto his personal channel and find his lastes video on AI and find his statement saying AI will only get better from here.
You want to have some dumb internet debate and pretend like I’m against Hank Green or pro AI or some shit.
I pointed out two statements that are clearly wrong, that Hank Green is endorsing as true.
I don’t give a shit about all this other crap you’ve raised to muddy the waters. So piss off.
I wrote a comment along these lines, he brought up “agents” in that SciShow episode without directly saying the word, and modern agents are really just a bunch of scripts tied together with an LLM. It’s not that complicated, and they absolutely suck at performing tasks that aren’t narrowly defined. Like you can’t throw it at some issues on GitHub and expect it to actually come up with solutions. People have tried that and the success rates are absurdly low.
SciShow can be incredibly sloppy at times. They had this episode about knitting a while back and lots of knitters basically fired back with “…did you guys try to talk to knitters about this?”
Hank Green seems really affable, it’s hard not to like him (knowing very little about him) but SciShow really needs more rigorous fact checking.