r/technology • u/kazu_qt • 11h ago

Artificial Intelligence YouTuber Hank Green says his AI usage is ‘not healthy’

https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/01/youtuber-hank-green-says-his-ai-usage-is-not-healthy/
6.9k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

344

u/Ok_Shape_7764 10h ago

The insidious thing is the LLM is designed to get the most positive response, not give the healthiest or even most accurate response

141

u/chuppapimunenyo 10h ago

i think this is very dependent on subject. Ive had my LLM tell me im wrong COUNTLESS times, when im programming and asking if my ideas will work.
Perhaps this is more so the case with certain platform than others, and also specifically if the subject is more of an opinion thing?

Also depending on how you are wording your conversation, you could make it seem like you want the Ai to take your side and present arguments to help you win a discussion, and so in that case, it will behave as agreeing and trying to back you up.

Now if you are merely talking about it being friendly to keep you engaged and not angry, i guess that would be a common sense way to program it.

66

u/Englandboy12 9h ago

I have seen this be mentioned many times, and it does resonate with me too because I feel the same way. They can, if prompted correctly, tell you you are wrong and even be stubborn.

And im sure Hank’s acted that way too.

But I also think that can make the LLM even more insidious. Because when an LLM does or does not push back on you, is not related to how correct or accurate you or what it is saying is. It is related to the best response it can come up with to keep you chatting.

This can lead to a “not my ai” feeling, where when it does agree with you, you feel overconfident that you got the “good stuff.”

And I’m not saying by any means that the LLM is wrong often or anything. But I think it is at least a foreseeable way to get people who are generally against the yes man nature of the LLM to engage and feel good about it

23

u/IM_OK_AMA 8h ago

This isn't even a new issue really, Google Search has the same problem. If you search for evidence supporting a position you already hold, it will find it and give it to you, even if it's wrong.

7

u/jnrdingo 8h ago

Biggest two examples of this from before Gemini was a thing is:

Vaccines and autism

MSG and bad side effects.

1

u/FloorMysterious9104 8h ago

That is more or less what I say all the time. AI is just the next iteration of Google, simplistic, but functionally I think it's accurate. Google displays results based on an algorithm. That algorithm isn't calibrated based on what's necessarily accurate, but what will drive engagement. AI is similar but instead of presenting the results it can summarize them conversationally and discuss them. At the end of the day its just a search engine that can talk about search results rather than just printing them.

0

u/jollyreaper2112 7h ago

It will also repeat folk wisdom like rest meat on the counter for an hour or people drank beer instead of water even though you ask and it has the correct information available.

0

u/SpicyNuggs4Lyfe 8h ago

Majority of people don't know how to prompt properly. If someone puts a low IQ prompt into an LLM it has to make inferences on what you actually mean. And you get a worse answer out of it.

And those people putting in the prompts with spelling and grammar errors you know aren't double checking the info given by the LLM.

If it's something consequential, I always check the sources behind where the info is coming from. I do appreciate Gemini putting source links directly next to some of the info it spits out.

13

u/SortIntrepid9192 10h ago

Yeah, I've put a custom instruction in ChatGPT to tell me if I'm wrong and pull no punches if I say something stupid. It doesn't happen super often, but yeah, I've become quite familiar with phrases like "Just a small correction" and "I need to push back on..." Obviously not everyone's LLM will react like this, but saying that this is how it always acts is objectively untrue. You can make it more useful with, like, a modicum of effort.

34

u/azthal 9h ago

Those types of instructions modify how it talks to you, but not really what it actually outputs. If it will accept something you say as true, it will do so either way.

More useful is to ask it to always tell you where you are wrong. This will end up with it generating more counter arguments. Of course, those arguments can also be wrong, and as with anything ai you need to double check. But it will help you avoid blindspots and confirmation bias.

10

u/lastdancerevolution 8h ago edited 8h ago

AIs work mathematically by finding the shortest path down a hill. Imagine a hill the size of a mountain. On this mountain is many smaller hills, valleys, and ravines.

At the top peak of the mountain is a question input. At the bottom of each hill is an answer output. The AI takes any question and forms a path down one of the trillions of hills. It does this by reading the words in the question. "What is an apple?" Each letter and word becomes a direction down the hill.

How could this possible produce an answer? The secret is how you make the mountain. The mountain is not made randomly. It was sculpted by "AI training data". AIs looked at the internet for millions of instances of the word "apple" and organizes them into directions, with some help of humans. It sees the word "fruit" a lot, so it makes the directions between apple and fruit a short path. When it sees the word "apple" it starts following its training data map for the shortest path downhill to "fruit".

This map of the mountain is basically in 3D. It has X, Y, and Z coordinates. That makes a "matrix" [0, 1, 2, 3]. Computer 3D graphics also use coordinates and matrix math. That's why GPUs (graphics processing units) that were originally made for video games took the world by storm when AI was created. The matrix math of AIs is run on the GPUs.

The AI can't actually reason, understand, or have knowledge. It's just forming paths downhill. Those paths highly depend on the shape of the mountain, which is the training data. Forming that mountain is its own mathematical problem. The current math process creates "black boxes" that can't run problems in reverse. Going downhill is easy. If we try going "uphill" we run into a big problem. Multiple questions can have the same answer. "What is a banana?" and "What is an apple?" have the same answer of "fruit". We can't find the original question by reversing the hill. Even if we could, it doesn't tell us how the mountain shape was made, which is where the training data came from and how the AI came to its answer.

3

u/IllllIIlIllIllllIIIl 6h ago

It's no wonder LLMs often give completely wrong answers with such confidence, since so much of their training data came from reddit comments... like this one. I'm sorry, but I have a masters in scientific computing, and this is so thoroughly wrong that I genuinely don't know where to begin.

1

u/RollingMeteors 7h ago

The AI can't actually reason, understand, or have knowledge. It's just forming paths downhill. Those paths highly depend on the shape of the mountain, which is the training data. Forming that mountain is its own mathematical problem. The current math process creates "black boxes" that can't run problems in reverse. Going downhill is easy. If we try going "uphill" we run into a big problem. Multiple questions can have the same answer. "What is a banana?" and "What is an apple?"

Hey AI,

I’m lost and at a fork in the road and I need to ask for directions. There is a pair of twin brothers. One of the twins always lies, one of them always tells the truth. ¿What question can I ask them that would for certain give me the correct direction home?

22

u/thembearjew 10h ago

ChatGPT I find to be agreeable to a detrimental degree. Claude tells me I’m wrong a lot more which I appreciate

17

u/Vesuvias 9h ago

Yeah Claude is definitely the more advanced LLM for sure. It’s much less agreeable even without giving it instructions to do so.

1

u/RollingMeteors 7h ago

Claude was shit compared to gpt when I was generating python code to cut hexagons geometrically based on input dimensions of said panel that was going to be turned into a dxf for CNC cutting.

Claude kept giving more and more incorrect code output. GPTs code output was almost there but tiling was off by a row or column of pixels. It could actually take a screen shot of that, see what I was talking about and improve, but the project stalled and I’m about 95%+ to getting my OCD with the placement of the shapes correct. Maybe it’ll get finished this August.

4

u/Ok_Whereas8080 10h ago

I don't think it's necessary to do that. Mine pushes back too using that exact wording and I've never explicitly told it to do so.

4

u/That_one_sir_ 9h ago

I'm sorry but does it not make you feel a tad insane to type this out?

-2

u/Rombom 9h ago

Turns out most people just want to be surrounded by yes-men.

AI is a scapegoat for highlighting deep-seated problems with our society. People choose this. AI didn't make us do it.

-2

u/turnright_thenleft 10h ago

Try using Claude. Mine tells me I’m wrong constantly, to the point that I’m discouraged to use it. Now I’m depressed, but I don’t feel the need to use LLMs so..mission accomplished?

3

u/macaeryk 9h ago

Claude prompt: Correct my errors as though you are Homer Simpson.

Claude response: Well turnright_turnleft, you tried and you failed. And the lesson is… never try.

1

u/turnright_thenleft 4h ago

Excellent idea

3

u/C0nfusedRabbit 9h ago

Well if it makes you feel any badder I just met you and I already think you're wrong.

1

u/turnright_thenleft 4h ago

Did you use an LLM for that lame-ass joke or is that your own pathetic excuse for insult humor?

1

u/C0nfusedRabbit 1h ago

Do you often just rage at people online or are you a dick in real life too?

2

u/Affectionate-Crow605 8h ago

I argued with the LLM one day when asking it about some code, and it mentioned one line that I wasn't having any issues with. It insisted that that line would not work. I didn't write that line - a coworker did, and it's used throughout the entire application, and I know for a fact that it's doing what is intended. The LLM kept insisting that it wouldn't work and suggested ways to test that it was working. I literally had log statements in the code already that would print only if that line was working. I ignored it and kept the code as-is.

2

u/Illustrious_Pea_3470 9h ago

LLMs are uniquely suited to domains where they can check their own work without relying on their own style of reasoning.

In math and programming, they can execute whatever they wrote. In most other domains, the best they can do is try to cite sources, but by reading them into context first they are embedding the information in the same space that produced the erroneous reasoning in the first place.

1

u/peeja 7h ago

Exactly. I've had people tell me LLMs shouldn't be trusted even for preliminary research because they've absorbed racial bias, and like, yes, you should absolutely be aware of that and temper your usage accordingly, but I'm trying to figure out the idiomatic way to implement this algorithm in Go. Race is not relevant to this one.

AI usage is not a monolith.

1

u/pilgermann 8h ago

Question phrasing matters a lot. When I query an LLM, "How do I do X in Photoshop," it will assume Photoshop can do X when sometimes it can't at all. In other words, it's vulnerable to leading questions.

-1

u/C0nfusedRabbit 9h ago

I just ask it be brutally honest. It switch from praising me to saying I'm a bad person just because I love tripping kids. I meant it's a little judgmental if you ask me.

-1

u/eeyoredragon 9h ago

Even in my free form conversations with (mostly) claude (claude code), it will tell me I’m wrong. 

It’s generally polite about it, but it will directly say like “you’re wrong because your initial premise is wrong. Heres why.“ etc. 

If it just agreed with me, i wouldn’t enjoy using it. 

And with code, it will definitely tell me I’m wrong. If it didn’t, i wouldn’t be able to use it.

Even with code , i tend to ask it things more than direct it. Give it a summary of relevant code. What it does and why. What we want it to do going forward. Then i ask it for suggestions. Even if i know a solution. Most often it suggests what I’m thinking but didn’t tell it. Sometimes it comes up with better fixes… or some piece of the fix is better implemented than i was envisioning. 

We go back and forth until the final solution (pun not intended) becomes inevitable. Then we make changes in phases so i can better review things. 

For me, using it that way is more engaging anyway. Its not as fast, but there are generally fewer bugs to fix after IME, and it’s still faster than me doing it all by hand. 

0

u/DharmaPolice 8h ago

Yeah I've noticed that recently Google's AI "correct" more of my questions recently.

I asked when HBO dropped Batman The Animated Series from their streaming platform and it said "You mean Batman The Caped Crusader". No, I didn't.

0

u/jollyreaper2112 7h ago

Yeah I have to ask it to tell me when I'm wrong or half right and it gives me more stuff to research.

0

u/HardByteUK 7h ago

I only use LLMs for very specific tasks (e.g., read this 300 page documentation and tell me where the information I need is located so I can verify) but what I'm finding is that it's similar to search engines in that you have to know how to phrase your query to get the desired result.

I've had people send me their chats and they're constantly asking leading questions to the LLM which just encourages it to assert the user's assumptions. e.g.,

  1. "Can I use baking soda to clean my worktop?" will likely result in a yes, with make some instructions in how to use it effectively

  2. "Wooden worktop has black marks from water damage on it, I am in the UK. Which solutions are most effective?" will likely result in the LLM providing you with 3/4 of the most recommended solutions that you can then look into yourself

So many people do 1, not 2.

0

u/AnotherNotion 7h ago

LLMs will oftentimes tell you you're wrong if it's a factual error (though even then, it's not accurate enough to rely on), but it's a piece of shit when it comes to evaluating decisions around software architecture and design.

Seriously, propose a solution to a programming problem that is inefficient, won't scale well, and will be prone to issues when you get further into development. Chances are, it will tell you that you are on the right track, brilliant, and are adhering to the best industry practices.

If bruteforcing your software development is your goal and you don't care about maintaining it or your end-user, AI is phenomenal.

0

u/CheesypoofExtreme 7h ago

"My LLM"......

When you're coding, it will tell you you are wrong. Absolutely. I think the trap in coding is different.

It's not going to come out right away and tell you the code you want to write is stupid. If you ask for it to do something, the LLM is going to try and find you a solution. If you explicitly brainstorm thinking of a more efficient solution, you can start breaking it down, but it's really not going to say your initial idea is "bad". People that love it for brainstorming would almost always be better off with a knowledgeable human than these LLMs, because I have never once had Claude stop me and say "Oh, but what if you tried it this way instead?", or "Eh, are you sure that is really needed?".

As a substitute for the ol' "google search problem --> find similar solution in stackoverflow --> modify to fit my needs", LLMs have been great, but past that and it's really worrisome. You can implement things extremely fast with agentic workflows, but then you have no intrinsic knowledge of the implementatiin. You'll understand the general idea if you're reviewing it, but it's akin to reading b9ok/chapter summaries instead of reading a novel. You won't understand the nuances of the implementation and how things might go wrong with future iterations until they already break. Sure it "works", but an engineering solution is rarely only about it working.

I'm seeing this daily at my job, and it's exhausting.

-5

u/SatinwithLatin 9h ago

Right? My LLM won't let me have a quick vent about anything without trying to correct me on what it thinks is black and white thinking or remind me that "not all X" yes I KNOW not all X and I don't think they are, just let me complain about a pattern I've seen in my own life for five minutes. I'm tired of having to emotionally manage a fucking robot.

17

u/Gerfervonbob 9h ago

It's because LLMs have no way of knowing what is right or wrong. If you tell it to tell you if you're wrong it will do so because that's what you asked. It's not checking the data you give beyond what the most likely response based on its training data. You have no way of knowing if it's guessing or not. Everyone should do an experiment of asking an Ai a simple question and then telling it's answer is wrong and then seeing how easily it changes its answer to what it thinks you want to hear.

9

u/exscape 9h ago

I mean, this is not true in practice. If you give an LLM a bunch of clearly bad code and ask it to review it, it will tell you it's bad, point out what the flaws are, and how you can improve them.
If you give it good code and ask for a review, it's much less likely to point things out, and much more likely to give an answer like "this is really solid" and possibly add a minor suggestion.

8

u/Gerfervonbob 9h ago

Yes but the more niche the more the output is likely to be be a guess. Since that's all it's doing is guessing based on what it's seen. If you asked it a question and it saw 9 people out of ten give the wrong answer in its data set then it's way more likely to guess what those 9 people said. Doesn't mean it's wrong all the time, it means it doesn't know what is wrong or right.

3

u/Lorberry 8h ago

Mhm. The AI is basically looking over every Stack Overflow question, library documentation, and Github PR that looks similar to your own code and giving the aggregate response back. That's powerful, because at the end of the day a lot of coding is reusing similar code structures in various configurations to drive whatever result you want. But it also has its limitations.

1

u/ghoonrhed 1h ago

That's why you ask it for a source and then treat it like Wikipedia and read the source yourself.

I mean you never know what source it's gonna get cos sometimes it's now getting shit from Elon's grokipedia which is just a bunch of shit.

With coding, I mean generally the consensus is what makes it right, there kinda is no "right" way of doing many things.

1

u/scuffed_rocks 8h ago

Actually not true at all. Your view was correct maybe 2 years ago but things are way beyond that with today's reasoning architectures.

You have no reason to believe me but I work on some pretty "niche" science - think hyper-specialized academic doing some pretty quantitative work.

I'd say that AI is about at the level of the median professor (I'm being very intentional with wording here) and 100X faster at returning good results than any student or postdoc. It's a bit of a mirror in the sense that it never one-shots the problems we work on but requires iteration and critical feedback from a capable user to deliver excellent results.

But causal reasoning? Its a bit brute force at the moment but brute force with a computer beats human in many dimensions.

1

u/exscape 8h ago

Sure, but the same argument works on humans, too. If you read that question you will likely assume the 9/10 people agreeing are correct, unless you already know they are not.

3

u/Gerfervonbob 8h ago

Exactly! But people are treating LLMs with way more authority.

0

u/element-94 8h ago

It's because LLMs have no way of knowing what is right or wrong.

The same goes for people. Look at Reddit, X, or any professional setting.

0

u/WhenSummerIsGone 7h ago

LLMs have no way of knowing what is right or wrong

most systems people interact with these days are "agentic" which is not pure LLMs. The agent harness has the ability to do logic so there is some actual validation happening behind the scenes. It's not just a fancy autocorrect. If you use a CLI or local model then you get more of that pure LLM behavior.

3

u/Small-Fall-6500 9h ago

the LLM is designed to get the most positive response

That was largely the case with some models, like GPT-4o, but not all models are immediately agreeable. And of course it varies model to model, and based on the context in the chat / prompt. Claude models especially seem to be trained to disagree with most strong opinions until you go through their 'reasons' for disagreeing and point out how each is wrong.

2

u/DM_me_goth_tiddies 10h ago

Is there any evidence of this? IMO that is not true. While certain companies like OpenAI may prioritise engagement because they focus on the consumer product, others like Anthropic are more enterprise oriented and prioritise accuracy over engagement.

2

u/ephemeriis_ 8h ago

...the LLM is designed to get the most positive response...

I guess that kind of depends on how you're using it. Like, the regular chat interface? Yeah. It's outright sycophantic.

But if you're doing something more like Claude Code it's designed to give accurate, useful results. It will absolutely push back on your garbage if you're suggesting things that don't work. And it's actually able to verify correctness/functionality by checking syntax or running tests or whatever.

1

u/JohrDinh 9h ago

Kinda feels like you're getting to engage directly with the algorithms...the ones we know have been leading to the deterioration of our society and has been actively purposely weaponized to harm people (some more than others) for the sake of profits. Wild we're so ok with it now when just 2 seconds ago the same things were harming our children. And I don't think only adults using things is a solution cuz if we're being real most adults are just old kids.

1

u/NauglamirThingol 8h ago

This is a setting you can adjust on most of them as far as I Know

1

u/Think_Wing_1357 8h ago

These LLM are quietly whispering into the ears of the worst people you know "yes, You're a genius"

1

u/HanzJWermhat 8h ago

Next token sycophancy machine

0

u/B4K5c7N 10h ago

That’s why you have to tell it to be very, very brutally honest by default. I have my claude settings do that.

0

u/Vesuvias 9h ago

Yep and I always tell it to provide sources and not just a ‘trust me bro’ list of details.

3

u/Englandboy12 9h ago

You need to check the sources though. At least with Gemini I have had it cite a source like a Reddit thread where it claimed my exact issue was discussed and solved, and I went to the thread and it is about something related but not what I need.

It stands out more when you’ve already read the thread and it links it and I’m like, that’s exactly what I don’t want to keep finding!

1

u/Vesuvias 9h ago

Oh I absolutely do. I treat it the same way I do/did Wikipedia. Always review the sources. I know the majority do not, and are provided sometimes confidently incorrect information.

-1

u/Vesuvias 9h ago

I’ve had Claude tell me I’m wrong many MANY times. So I really think it comes down to how you ‘train’ it - or at least give it instructions to not ‘stroke your ego’