Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Leo
@leosn.eth
Sad to see: an AI generated science video that’s stolen the voice of David Attenborough. The charitable interpretation is that someone saw a paper and wanted to make it engaging. But it’s just one paper, presented as far more reliable than it should be. The world is going to get flooded with this isn’t it… 🍋
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Leo
@leosn.eth
The premise of my cast is that Attenborough is more trustworthy than a median academic paper. This is true because Attenborough never makes very strong claims: it’s always about, this animal does X, we know because we filmed it, and it has these implications for history which is an open question But this single paper has all the biases a scientific paper can have, and it’s making a very strong claim in its domain. And that’s assuming there really was a paper: it’s absolutely trivial to make up something completely false.
0 reply
1 recast
1 reaction
Njal
@cryptonjal
This is a process that has been going on for a while. When the internet became mainstream and Wikipedia was created, there was the same discussion. Everyone could write and publish whatever they wanted, without a publisher or editorial team separating the wheat from the chaff. Wikipedia turned out to be just as reliable as encyclopedias published by publishers, but that does not apply to other things on the internet. It is the price we pay for technological progress and ever lower thresholds for communicating in certain ways. We no longer need a PhD or money to publish, but we do need academic skills to determine whether something is biased, reliable or outright lies.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
