FlexiSpot Labour Day Sale is here - up to 65% off sitewide! Use code FERN50 to get an extra $50 off on all products.Check out the E7 Pro Standing Desk:🇺🇲 h...

Countless AI slop channels are relentlessly copying our work. So one day we decided: enough is enough. We went undercover to investigate who’s behind them and what this flood of AI slop means for the future of educational content on YouTube.

    • joelfromaus@aussie.zoneEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      I was just wondering this, considering the lengths they go to on their newer channel to prove that it’s not slop.

    • AlcoholicPenis@futurology.todayEnglish
      1332·
      3 days ago

      They are a slop channel. AI or not. The content they produce is garbage.

      Edit: Kurzgesagt fanboys are sorry excuses for human life. It is people just like you who promote and encourage AI slop as well, because “I can’t tell” or “It’s really fun hahah”.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        124·
        3 days ago

        Agree.

        Of course AI is bad, but another problem with youtube is that 99% of the human made content is garbage.

        Not just Kurzgesagt, but pretty much every channel with 100k+ subscribers will inevitably turn into trash, because of the need to keep up the rate of posting to stay relevant to keep getting paid to keep paying their expenses to keep making videos. This whole grind must keep going regardless of whether they have anything to post at all. So they all run dry eventually.

        I watched all 20-30 minutes including all the fucking commercials of the video posted in OP - hoping to learn anything remotely new, but I didn’t. 30 minutes on something that could have been explained in a single written sentence.

        I’m sure they’re wonderful people, and I’m sorry to trash talk the human creators, but the video is itself an example of how bad YouTube is, even without AI.

        If they have a message for people that they want to share, they ought to cut to the chase instead of attempting to monitize on a single idea stretched out over 30 minutes.

        It’s too bad they’re missing income from AI stealing their shit, but I have to wonder if they ought to be paid anything at all to begin with.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        2·
        2 days ago

        “Slop” is not determined by quality, but by intent. If no one responsible for making it cares about the quality of the output, it’s slop, regardless of how well-made it might be; on the flip side, even if something is really bad, it isn’t slop if the people making it are really passionate about doing the best they can. Kurzgesagt might be low quality, and it might be slop, but the two are not necessarily dependent upon one another.

        • uniqueQuirky@lemmy.ml
          427·
          3 days ago

          1. They claim to be “almost entirely viewer-funded”, which was later proved to NOT be the case. Kurzgesagt deflected when asked about this.

          2. They were making videos sponsored by Breakthrough Energy, Open Philantropy, and the Gates Foundation.

          All three are Bill Gates affiliated.

          Those videos were also conveniently aligning with financial interests of Bill Gates, as the videos advocated for carbon capture and lab meat. Bill Gates massively invested in both

          • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
            213·
            3 days ago

            Those are fair reasons for skepticism, but whenever I check, their videos are not misrepresenting or twisting the subjects they analyze, but are rather transparent about their sources, their limitations and the differences between presentation of data and more “opinion based” parts.

            For sure it would be a problem if they were in the pocket of industry, but if somebody makes a truthful quality video on a topic, and they receive support from people interested in truthful quality videos on that topic, that itself does not render the video less truthful or less quality.

            And doesn’t render it a shitty channel.

            • SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              92·
              2 days ago

              I want to add though, that it’s still possible to have selective biss even with good quality stuff. Kind of like how only certain studies are funded and those studies are still good.

              I remember when kurzgesagt was first starting, I remember wishing all my school science videos were that good on those subjects.

              Sure, they probably impart bias - and that VERY MUCH SHOULD GET FIXED - but kurz is still way better having been made.

              Calling them slop, then, just doesn’t seem an appropriate criticism. Biased, funded by Bill Gates. Maybe.

              But as far as billionaires go, at least it isn’t fucking Musk. I know I know, we shouldn’t settle for that, and I’m not proposing we do. But, as long as we’re discussing bias and accuracy, I think it’s important to try to be less biased and be more accurate, even with our criticisms, and kurzgesagt is not infallible or perfect, and shouldn’t be treated as such - but then, neither is either private nor public education. It doesn’t mean we should condemn the entire structure or system, it means we should hold them accountable and fix it.

              Unless there’s systemic issues (and yes, there are, with being funded by ANY big power, be it a state power or private), I think we should merely try to do our best and be more deliberate with trying to do better.

              I have a weird system for solving a totally unrelated challenge, and it goes like this: if you veto, you must propose the next suggestion (it’s about choosing what/where to eat).

              So, in this context, I think it important to not only be more pointed in our criticisms, but potentially even suggest solutions, rather than just complain.

              For kurz, then, instead of saying “being funded by Bill Gates is bad and obviously imparts bias” we should a) identity said bias (which it looks like people are wonderfully doing already, which is fantastic), and b) suggest what they should do instead of accepting money from Bill Gates.

              On b, one thing they could do could be to turn it down, on reason of not wanting to take on strings or impart even perceived bias. To remain impartial. They could, alternatively, try to prove or create some kind of system to open criticisms about bias or hold a forum regarding said information, since they’ve grown in size so much.

              I dunno. I’m trying to have an open mind here. I think it’s important to hold good information sources accountable, but I also think that anything we can do to oppose the insane, blatant far right agenda full of actual, EXTREME bias is a good start. I don’t think we should settle, but I’m also hesitant to hamstring anything that goes against that, for now.

          • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
            55·
            3 days ago

            Also vaping is bad Weed is bad Smoking is awesome

            Like WTF? Phillip Morris give you some cash?

            • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              152·
              3 days ago

              The smoking is awesome video is just a clickbait title, the video’s script is about all the ways smoking feels good but harms you. It’s not pro-smoking

              • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
                4·
                3 days ago

                They very much underplay the harms you aspect, almost as a byline, while they focus primarily on only harm for vape/weed. I don’t smoke anything, but if you compare the videos, the threat the three very differently.

        • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
          293·
          3 days ago

          It’s blatant misinformation based on false data.

          A video on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjHMoNGqQTI

          You can also read Kurzgesagt’s ‘response’, which cherry picks two arguments, twists them, doesn’t even properly respond to them, and ignores all other points made. In perfect, corporate PR fashion.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt_statement_to_the_conflict_of_interest/?solution=b43f6dc8abb6ffdbb43f6dc8abb6ffdb&js_challenge=1&jsc_token=7afd7253fec22262ff1c52b1703fe9ec99c0261658c638dce035a6bc03872661&jsc_orig_r=

          • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
            8·
            3 days ago

            Are there text format criticisms? Or could you highlight the key points or evidence against Kurzgesagt? Sorry, I have a hard time parsing videos on this kind of stuff.

            Also in general the videos I’ve seen are solid information based on good data, like Our World On Data, is it some specific video or class of videos that are misinformation and poorly founded in data?

              • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
                31·
                2 days ago

                Thanks! So @DupaCycki@lemmy.world said

                It’s blatant misinformation based on false data

                Your link says Kurzgesagt

                • should be more transparent about their funding (see e.g. the strawman section)
                • shouldn’t rely on science funded by billionaire philanthropists and big pharma
                • shouldn’t rely on purely Western data sources

                Those are very different statements. In particular, your link says that the science and data can be completely correct, but that by obscuring conflicts of interest they reduce credibility, and by using Western data sources and scientists, their perspective is skewed.

                It can all be good and credible science, but it’s science from a single perspective.

                It’s an interesting discussion, but it doesn’t support the point that this should be disinformation or based on false data. It supports a much more moderate point that it represents a limited worldview, I’d say.

            • uniqueQuirky@lemmy.ml
              2·
              2 days ago

              I have watched this video a few months ago, and the comments were still on. It must be a recent change. No clue why

              • UnequalExchange@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 days ago

                A weird change

                A video where you expose a big company seems like an odd choice to block public commentary on seeing as how we currently live in a world where big companies can get away with conducting actual genocides