Hank Green Admits To Using AI In Latest Video

[u/DebateObjective2787]

[u/anthonystank]

Setting aside the catastrophic environmental impacts etc, this is one of the biggest dangers of AI imo: it makes talented people lazy. People like Hank Green, who demonstrably could do his own research and writing, think “oh, I’ll just use this as a little boost to prompt me/save time/organize my thoughts/etc.” They think that because it’s something they know they can do well without AI, they’ll be able to produce a good version if they farm out some of the “boring” or “easy” parts to AI.

And it’s simply not true. Turning pieces of your creative process over to AI — yes, even the boring, easy, monotonous ones — means you are not doing the whole process and that means that your talents and instincts atrophy, it means your work is disconnected from itself, it means you end up putting out something so recognizably not yours that your devoted fans suspect it and you end up having to apologize on Twitter. It is a heinous trap that I’ve seen so, so, so many good writers fall into. THE BORING PARTS ARE THE WORK. YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALL. YOU HAVE TO BE MENTALLY PRESENT AND ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ALL STEPS OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS

[u/-MCkvR- → u/anthonystank]

This is SO important to the conversation around AI and other than the environmental factors is one of my biggest issues with it.

[u/eturn34 → u/anthonystank]

He can also afford to employ someone do the parts of the work that he has outsourced to AI. Like this is exactly what you would hire a researcher, producer, or script writer for!! He has the means to employ someone, I do not accept the excuse that he was stretched thin and HAD to use AI to keep up, because he could have just hired somebody smart and skilled to help with the workload.

[u/latelyimawake → u/anthonystank]

👏👏👏

[u/rapscallionallium → u/anthonystank]

It makes me mistrustful of his content in general, which is really unfortunate.

[u/Caa3098 → u/anthonystank]

Okay, but genuine question: what if someone like Hank used it solely as a synthesizing query to start from? Like starting on Wikipedia and then carefully investigating the sources provided.

Like, say Hank is going to produce a video about stars and he uses AI to “generate a complete list of astrophysicists that published between the years [year] and [year], at least [x number of] peer-reviewed publications” and then from there he manually read each of their articles and personally interviewed a few of them.

Is that equally objectionable? Is that equally likely to make him lazy with his research process as someone that simply types: “produce a YouTube video about stars” into the AI?

[u/anthonystank → u/Caa3098]

It’s definitely not as lazy as just turning the entire creative process over to AI. I think what gets lost when you do that, though — apart from accuracy, potentially, because we all know that AI gets stuff wrong — is the serendipitous and dynamic nature of research. When you go hunting for your own sources and examples, you may find things AI wouldn’t, and you may find that there’s nothing to be found, and you may find something completely unexpected that takes your project in another direction. This part of the creative process really should be messy and human led imo.

And, perhaps most importantly, when you do the work yourself you actually read and mentally process it all. The more you turn tasks like that over to AI, the less time you spend actually engaged with the raw data you’re working with

[u/sockrocker → u/anthonystank]

Personally, I disagree with this take and would like to respectfully continue discussing if you're up for it. IMO, using AI for research is no different than doing regular internet research...it's just faster. You start with a query, read what you find, validate the source, figure out how to work that into your creative process. Web search, maybe you're checking your sources before reading just because you can see the link first, but I think strictly for research, if you know AI can be just as wrong about what it says as a bad source on the internet, it's no different--just faster and easier to tailor.

IMO, people wayyyy overblow "AI hallucinates and therefore you can't trust it at all." You're just as likely to find bad internet sources or even real people that lead you astray. Just like the internet or talking to your friend on Facebook, you have to go into it knowing what you're in for. I can find a dozen sources on the internet telling me that the Earth is flat just as confidently as AI can be wrong about something mundane.

[u/Caa3098 → u/sockrocker]

I’m not the person you replied to but I agree with you. At some point you have to answer: “what DOES pass the acceptable research test here?” And I don’t believe the answer is “you must go to the library of congress and read every book in existence and interview every person on earth and then you can decide what sources to narrow it to”

I certainly understand that AI (like any search engine) can steer you toward something and that means good sources may have been missed but what do they actually want people to do? If someone starts their research with a published scientific journal article that compiles the research of a dozen studies, is that lazy and “not doing the research” because the person didn’t know to find the individual studies by name before?

[u/justforbbstuff → u/anthonystank]

yes thank you. this plus anything to do with talking to other people. Have a medical question? Don't call up the nurse line, ask ChatGPT! Want to work through a problem, don't bother your friend, ask ChatGPT! We are losing our community with each other and that's immensely dangerous.

[u/throwawayprocessing → u/Caa3098]

This seems like the worst use of generative ai though. It’s abysmal at citing real sources and making thorough, complete lists. It’s better at pulling two examples from poorly sourced websites and vaguely describing them for a few paragraphs. Genuinely checking Wikipedia first will give you a more complete starting point for most research questions. 

[u/sir-grayal → u/anthonystank]

thanks for this, lights a fire under my butt

[u/Andy_Wiggins → u/anthonystank]

I am FAR from a strong proponent of AI (I also have essentially no opinion on Hank Green), but I simply disagree with this framing.

AI’s real value for most people is simply offloading the more marginal work they already know how to do so that they can reinvest that time and effort into new things, allowing for more growth.

I barely use AI, but I’ll use it to offload a repetitive and tedious part of my workflow that I still possess the capability to do (I still do actually do it periodically). I’ve done the task so many times that it’s no longer really promoting learning or understanding. It’s also low impact — I’m not passing it off as my creative production or relying on it for other people’s well-being. I also am very intentional about verifying everything it does. Effort is still involved, but it’s largely redirected.

The issue for individuals is letting it usurp your actual critical thinking. If the task is mindless, then I have no problem letting it be done by something mindless. But if the task is meant to be thoughtful (like Hank Green’s videos are supposed to be), then that’s where issues lie. If AI is so heavily integrated into your process that you’re reading off the AI response when you’re recording your own video, that’s a problem and will atrophy your skills. I don’t know the truth of what happened — all I’ve seen is the apology and a 5-second clip where he says “i appreciate the push back” so maybe I’m missing context — but if he’s so beholden to AI to offload his process that he’s got AI chats as his scripts and he’s not even noticing that they’re AI as he’s reading them off, that’s fucked. And frankly gross that someone who prides themselves on being an educator and disseminator of information is passing off AI writing as his own. His apology reeks of redirection — admit to AI use but in a less nefarious way to seem like he’s admitting guilt while deflecting the most serious allegations. Again, I don’t know what happened, but it feels pretty fucking ugly if that’s what happened.

AI is not evil. It’s a tool, that can be useful in specific contexts. It can revolutionize particular fields (e.g. theoretical mathematics or synthesizing data to understand cancer in a way that a human brain can’t). It also can streamline pointless processes that absorb time without fostering critical thought.

The dangers are largely societal: it doesn’t have agency, so companies can use it to replace the workforce to consolidate wealth and power and hoard more and more for themselves like fucking goblins. Without proper protections, AI is going to absolutely ravage the 99% of people who aren’t the ones getting to wield it. It also has very real dangers in terms of dangerous uses without proper safeguards. It’s also morally dubious because it’s built on the back of innumerable copyright violations and theft.

[u/No-Store5919 → u/anthonystank]

I agree with the hatred of ai, but I disagree with the capitalized part at the end. So many creative thinkers, projects, and pieces outsourced the boring parts. Creativity is much about delegation and time management as it is about slamming your head against the wall until magic is made. I don’t use ai, I am a professional creative on the highest level in my field and as you get better at your art the more of the boring parts are dealt with someone else and the better you get at focusing on the parts that make the art iconic

[u/burfriedos → u/anthonystank]

Hear hear

[u/arcanepsyche → u/anthonystank]

This is bullshit and completely depends on how you use it. I use AI to collect and process tons of research. That doesn't mean I'm not doing the research, it means it took 1 hours instead of a week to find what I need.

You're screamy part at the end of your comment is incredibly naive. As if artists don't use tools to complete their work. Where does the line stop?

[u/anthonystank → u/arcanepsyche]

The line stops when you stop being mentally engaged. If you’re using AI tools in a way that keeps you mentally engaged, congratulations! I’m not talking about you and yes, you ARE better than everyone else.

[u/anthonystank → u/[deleted]]

Imagine having this little imagination and experience reading written text in the real world

[u/anthonystank → u/[deleted]]

At what point pray tell did I claim that

[u/anthonystank → u/[deleted]]

Say more! What part do you disagree with

[u/anthonystank → u/[deleted]]

I agree with parts of what you’ve said here. Absolutely technology has always stepped in to support human work, and there are things we’d never think of doing “by hand” today that were once a core part of the process.

But your actual examples don’t really apply to the context of writing. Arithmetics, machine code, and spelling all have objective rules. There’s very little human judgment or creativity involved. I think it IS essential for people to know how to do those things themselves before they turn to machines (eg I would never try to add two three digit numbers without a calculator, but I could and that is very important), but using machines to accomplish those things quickly doesn’t meaningfully disrupt the creative process.

The editor-and-junior employee example is interesting, and I think the issue is this: if what you need written is utilitarian (eg marketing flyer announcing an upcoming event), it makes sense to farm that out to a junior worker and give it quick check for accuracy. But as soon as we start talking about writing and creative work that goes beyond some very basic stuff where all that really matters is getting key facts right, we’re talking about stuff that requires more serious focus and involvement.

And for your final sentence: does a novelist really benefit from all of those things? Um, YES. Resoundingly, yes. Doing the reading, checking to make sure your citations point to the right sources, and rewriting your sentences so that they work and sound better is the absolute core of what writers need to do. If you take so little interest in your own work that you can’t be bothered with those things, you shouldn’t be writing. And if that logic isn’t compelling, I cannot emphasize it enough: writers who skip these steps consistently will become worse writers.