Comment by jeffbee
12 hours ago
You are being dismissive, though. There is no "original knowledge" anywhere. If the videos are the best presentation of the information, best suited to convey the topic to the audience, then that is valuable. Humans learn better from visual information conveyed at the same time as spoken language, because that exploits multiple independent brain functions at the same time. Reading does not have this property. Particularly for novices to a topic, videos can more easily convey the mental framework necessary for deeper understanding than text can. Experts will prefer the text, but they are rarer.
> If the videos are the best presentation of the information, best suited to convey the topic to the audience, then that is valuable
Still doesn’t make them a primary source. A good research agent should be able to jump off the video to a good source.
I think you've never read real investigative journalism before
We live in an era where people lack the ability to read and digest written content and rely on someone speaking to them about it instead.
It's a step beyond that. Where people who only consume the easily digestible content don't believe there is a source to any of it
1 reply →
Imagine claiming that video has not historically been a medium of investigative journalism.
If your takeaway from my comment was "this guy thinks investigative journalism must be written" I would suggest reading the comment again.
How does the AI tell the difference between trustworthy YouTube postings, accidental misinformation, deliberate misinformation, plausible-sounding pseudoscience, satire, out-of-date information, and so on?
Some videos are a great source of information; many are the opposite. If AI can't tell the difference (and it can't) then it shouldn't be using them as sources or suggesting them for further study.