I've heard some channel owners complaining the AI slop is getting more clicks than they are sometimes.
This does not mean that complaining about real rather than perceived issue. I have hard time believing that anyone would watch AI impersonation of a presenter in any context but satirizing of said presenter. I think at the core of the complain that mindless slop gets promoted by YT algorithms. This has nothing to do with AI, as slop channels like Mr.Beast were getting promoted before AI content was a technical reality.
yours apparently is one of the least reliable.
How would you go about measuring that? If you measure it by seeing how much you agree with me, you are presupposing that you are right all the time. Rather arrogant and extremely unlikely.
Behind every union is a company that gave it a reason to exist by exploiting the workers.
Yet even after the reason is no longer there, the union continues existing.
So, in fact, what people rely on is authority, not science. If you mistrust the authority, then you are going to mistrust the "science" it claims to describe.
Very insightful. The authority keeps repeatedly getting it wrong, from amyloid plaques, to string theory, to mRNA jabs. More so, the long march through institutions by neo-Marxist made a mockery of scientific authority, when they tell you a man can become a woman, then you start wondering what else they tell you is ideological propaganda and not based on the actual science.
A scientist who could come up with a model by which carbon dioxide does not cause a greenhouse effect that will heat the atmosphere, and have that model not be ruled out by data, would instantly become the most famous atmospheric scientist in the world.
This is how science should work. In reality, a scientist like that would lose tenure track, grants, and would not this model published because peer review would not let it through.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol