Sophie Labelle | Instagram | Bluesky

Transcript

four frame comic.

first frame shows a typical AI poster that says : All chatgpt flyers look the same, especially with this font! the text above it reads : I won’t go to your event if the poster was made by AI.

second frame shows a still frame from a Hank Green youtube video. text above reads : I won’t read your post or email and I won’t watch your video if they were made with AI.

third frame shows an AI restaurant poster of burgers and chicken in a window. text reads : I won’t patronize your shop or restaurant if it is advertised with AI.

last frame shows an MS paint window with badly written : Your bad art is better than AI slop. text reads : if you can’t take the time or make the effort to interact with me yourself, then why should I do it?

  • bold_omi@lemmy.today
    2·
    2 hours ago

    It is illogical to assume that making people aware of communicative failures in science is done for the sake of clout. Making people aware of a failure in public science communication is a good and responsible thing, even after the event.

    It is reasonable to still share the comic because the overall point is valid—even if he already apologized—both because sharing knowledge is good, and because the choice of whether to still watch Hank after his apology is individual; just because you and I forgive him doesn’t make it unfair not to trust him as a result of this (I take the stance that I will continue to watch his content as long as he does not repeat this mistake: forgiveness is not permission, after all).

    To use his failing as an example of this negative behavior, or to make the choice not to watch his content because of his AI use, is fair. To assume sharing the fact that he did and a resultant choice of the comic author (to not watch that one tainted video, which I also will not watch) were for clout is not fair or reasonable.