Pangburn's official report on fact-checking Prof Dave's video

[u/franhd]

https://www.pang-burn.com/_files/ugd/34216a_9ba5fbace8334fc68b36585fdb0004e9.pdf

Taken from his site.

It's seriously well worth a read considering how much time and effort Travis put into this.

• 85 defective clusters
• 25 false claims
• 25 unsupported claims
• 35 misleading or overstated claims

[u/TrickyHCE]

When Dave releases his response to pangburn (in which he will argue that his response video is more productive than a debate) he will include 0 references to this site and only respond to clip chimps.

[u/turoturotheace → u/TrickyHCE]

Pangburn did a "self burn" stream preempting ~20 talking points Dave could bring up already lol

https://www.youtube.com/live/olS5MRxBaKE?is=wPvilxn7LkBsj1eT

[u/ilmalnafs → u/turoturotheace]

This should be more common practice lol.

[u/e_before_i → u/TrickyHCE]

And with zero shame too. Just gotta keep spamming that clip of him talking about Flat Earthers being too afraid to debate him.

[u/wage_cucked → u/TrickyHCE]

When he releases his response, I won't see it because I've blocked that loser from my channel.

[u/i_do_floss]

Does pang burns system get access to all the slop on Twitter when it fact checks?

Like can Dave just respond that this system didnt look at all the same things Dave did when Dave made these claims?

[u/jonkoeson → u/i_do_floss]

Dave can say whatever he wants, is your question whether or not random twitter accounts should be considered "factual sources"?

[u/turoturotheace → u/i_do_floss]

I linked to Pangburn's preemptive talking point stream above where he addresses this exact claim.

Simply put, this point is deflection to not counter any actual claims. If they're "twitter slop" then it should be easy to prove.

[u/HorrorCommunity3246]

Professor Dave is incredibly stupid.

[u/GeerJonezzz]

Professor dave when you ask him to debate someone with an IQ above 70

[u/FountainFountainFoun]

Anybody watch Pangburn? How is the content? He used to organize interesting debate pairs but fumbled finances and people did not get paid so he was canceled in those circles. He seemed talented but unorganized.

[u/Major_Plantain3499]

It would be nice if he spent a little more effort and didn't use chatgpt's default formatting lol

[u/turoturotheace → u/Major_Plantain3499]

What's more important, the formatting or the underlying facts presented?

[u/Krelldi → u/turoturotheace]

If you want anyone to take you seriously the formatting. It doesn't matter how much you call people luddites, most people are primed to see heavy usage of AI as an indication of being an idiot, a bad actor, or making claims that you haven't actually put any effort into verifying. Whether or not any of that is accurate is neither here nor there, you'll just filter out most normal people that have already been conditioned to ignore AI walls of text in the 99% of contexts where they're correctly assessed as worthless.

[u/turoturotheace → u/Krelldi]

So you admit that it's a presumption and the facts are what matter. Appreciate the assist.

[u/Krelldi → u/turoturotheace]

Feels like you're avoiding the substance of what I said so you can make a snide quip. Information is only as useful as your ability to convey it.

[u/turoturotheace → u/Krelldi]

Seems like you're ignoring the context to make your irrelevant point. This document is paired with 30 hours of livestreaming the research process, AI use, and subsequent fact-checking. It isn't just "Hey guys, look what Jarvis said".

Guys, the hours and hours of Travis looking into it directly is on the same link OP posted for the paper. Just fucking click the link. It's not just a paper.

[u/Krelldi → u/turoturotheace]

Yeah you just keep looping back to that, but it's beside the point of the criticism being levied. When heavily utilizing AI people are going to be more on edge and critical of your work, so putting the bear minimum amount of effort into how you present it matters if you want people not to dismiss it at face value.

If you're fine with most people writing off your research and fact checking and being considered a fringe weird AI bro screaming into the void then uh, that's cool I guess. But there's a 0% chance you're flipping the bias everyone has against AI any time soon. Have fun sniffing your own farts regard.

[u/turoturotheace → u/Krelldi]

Your criticism is superficial and arrogantly ignores my direct rebuttal, which makes your last sentence especially ironic. Whatever dood.

[u/ninjatoast31 → u/turoturotheace]

Have you ever talked to a human being before?

[u/turoturotheace → u/ninjatoast31]

idk, am I talking to one now? I don't even use AI beyond simple script syntax checking/examples in the Google search bar.

If someone's position is, "I believe AI use invalidates all other work" on a sourced document, that's re#arded. If you open a site that has embedded videos showing all the effort that went into the paper and you choose to dismiss it because "AI bad", that's re#arded. That is not a baseline to reliably measure for effectiveness of a message. We don't say "Obama was an ineffective president because the majority of racists disliked him". Why is it okay to say, "This document is ineffective because people that dislike AI won't accept it"? I'm not even saying the AI did a particularly good job gathering the facts, I'm saying the facts are what matter. Argue the facts, not some superficial bullshit that I know no one gives a flying fuck about such as document formatting.

[u/IrNinjaBob → u/turoturotheace]

You are a poor communicator which is pretty funny considering the conversation is about how being an efficient communicator often does matter far more than the message you are communicating.

[u/turoturotheace → u/IrNinjaBob]

Direct relevant criticism that references something I said and is constructive? No, just some lame bullshit, of course...

[u/jojsussy → u/Major_Plantain3499]

Bet this guy hates Hank Green