I don't trust Nate B Jones at all.
-
I don't trust Nate B Jones at all. This guy has a podcast about AI for CS people and I think it's propaganda designed to bring the doubters back. All of his podcasts lead with validating some problem we've all noticed with the way AI has been implemented, but then it pivots to "but it's not really as bad as you think."
This gives the illusion of balanced reasoning. Considering both sides.
But the real reason I don't trust this guy is he put up a graph like this:
-
I don't trust Nate B Jones at all. This guy has a podcast about AI for CS people and I think it's propaganda designed to bring the doubters back. All of his podcasts lead with validating some problem we've all noticed with the way AI has been implemented, but then it pivots to "but it's not really as bad as you think."
This gives the illusion of balanced reasoning. Considering both sides.
But the real reason I don't trust this guy is he put up a graph like this:
@futurebird Read "AI for CS people" as "AI for cis people" at first.
-
If you don't know who "Nate B Jones" is don't worry about it too much. Just make note of his face since one of his videos might drift across your feed if you follow AI news. He gets like 100k views a day, which is a lot for a technical podcast with a narrow focus like AI.
But about that graph... He said something like "dark code is going to 10 X as a problem in the next year" which is a fine thing to say, but also just, like, your opinion … man.
But then he puts up a graph about it?
@futurebird Very much "some number I pulled out of my arse".
Arse-numbers. Is there an OEIS for those?
-
I don't trust Nate B Jones at all. This guy has a podcast about AI for CS people and I think it's propaganda designed to bring the doubters back. All of his podcasts lead with validating some problem we've all noticed with the way AI has been implemented, but then it pivots to "but it's not really as bad as you think."
This gives the illusion of balanced reasoning. Considering both sides.
But the real reason I don't trust this guy is he put up a graph like this:
@futurebird That's a graph? I thought it was a lost canvas from the Bauhaus.
-
@futurebird
never trust the logical thinking of someone who can't make a coherent graphTechnically it is "coherent" it's just a suspect tactic. It's fine to say "I think this thing will be ten times worse in the future" ... but making a graph about it can only be about abusing the patina of objectivity that comes with graphs to make an opinion seems like it is supported by research.
That makes me see the speaker as manipulative, a charlatan.
Even though his point was probably ... fine. Is "dark code" a problem? Yea. Probably it is. But this is bad communication.
-
If you don't know who "Nate B Jones" is don't worry about it too much. Just make note of his face since one of his videos might drift across your feed if you follow AI news. He gets like 100k views a day, which is a lot for a technical podcast with a narrow focus like AI.
But about that graph... He said something like "dark code is going to 10 X as a problem in the next year" which is a fine thing to say, but also just, like, your opinion … man.
But then he puts up a graph about it?
@futurebird
The good news is next year there will be 10x less AI Podcasters because they will have been systematically hunted down by the cyborgs.
-
@futurebird
The good news is next year there will be 10x less AI Podcasters because they will have been systematically hunted down by the cyborgs. -
@futurebird
That's right! -
I don't trust Nate B Jones at all. This guy has a podcast about AI for CS people and I think it's propaganda designed to bring the doubters back. All of his podcasts lead with validating some problem we've all noticed with the way AI has been implemented, but then it pivots to "but it's not really as bad as you think."
This gives the illusion of balanced reasoning. Considering both sides.
But the real reason I don't trust this guy is he put up a graph like this:
@futurebird That's my worst graph of 2026 so far. I wonder if anyone can top it.
-
@futurebird That's my worst graph of 2026 so far. I wonder if anyone can top it.
Captains, it's April. 🫠
-
I would really like to hear from people who have a wide range of opinions on AI. But it's a messy landscape and I think there is a real effort to push propaganda.
-
I don't trust Nate B Jones at all. This guy has a podcast about AI for CS people and I think it's propaganda designed to bring the doubters back. All of his podcasts lead with validating some problem we've all noticed with the way AI has been implemented, but then it pivots to "but it's not really as bad as you think."
This gives the illusion of balanced reasoning. Considering both sides.
But the real reason I don't trust this guy is he put up a graph like this:
@futurebird we should make that graph a meme.
-
@futurebird we should make that graph a meme.
I'm always in favor of making fun of anyone who uses 'graphs' like this.
-
@futurebird @flipper @Tak Part of that is that "AI" is a marketing term. It _can_ (but usually does not, in general discussion) also mean a category of CS research.
A key tactic of the propaganda is to use that ambiguity to change the terms of the discussion whenever convenient.
My personal vehement opposition is to LLMs. The techbros have succeeded in convincing the public that LLMs == AI, and so I engage on that basis.
-
@futurebird we should make that graph a meme.
The more I think about it the more annoyed it makes me. When graphs are abused to lend a patina of scientific rigor to mere opinions and "hot takes" ... they steal that valor from the real graphs, the graphs based on data that help expose important insights that weren't visible until someone did the hard work of collecting data and doing real research.
This is why you can show some people data, and they dismiss it, because anyone can make a graph.
Stolen scientific valor!
-
@futurebird
The good news is next year there will be 10x less AI Podcasters because they will have been systematically hunted down by the cyborgs.@snork303 @futurebird I am a cyborg and I endorse this message
-
@futurebird
The good news is next year there will be 10x less AI Podcasters because they will have been systematically hunted down by the cyborgs.@snork303 @futurebird There are better targets for killer cyborgs, but you gotta start somewhere.
-
@futurebird That's my worst graph of 2026 so far. I wonder if anyone can top it.
"I wonder if anyone can top it."
shhhhh. please. please don't speak these things into being.
-
The more I think about it the more annoyed it makes me. When graphs are abused to lend a patina of scientific rigor to mere opinions and "hot takes" ... they steal that valor from the real graphs, the graphs based on data that help expose important insights that weren't visible until someone did the hard work of collecting data and doing real research.
This is why you can show some people data, and they dismiss it, because anyone can make a graph.
Stolen scientific valor!
@futurebird @FeralRobots I'm thinking of that pie chart spoof labeled "this" and "this. But in red"
-
I don't trust Nate B Jones at all. This guy has a podcast about AI for CS people and I think it's propaganda designed to bring the doubters back. All of his podcasts lead with validating some problem we've all noticed with the way AI has been implemented, but then it pivots to "but it's not really as bad as you think."
This gives the illusion of balanced reasoning. Considering both sides.
But the real reason I don't trust this guy is he put up a graph like this:
@futurebird but he does seem to have some pretty sweet LEGOs in frame
