I will forever be jealous of Toms ability to keep an audience gripped on every word he says. And with that I now realise what he means by an authoritative voice…
It’s all about how he paces his sentences and how he stresses each word. The way he’s talking purposefully builds up a kind of tension, for lack of a better word
@@cerdic6305 i mean while that might be part of it, i think the most important thing is the content of what he says, because if you don't know what to say, then your ability to pace sentences won't matter
Fact: the algo recommended this, i clicked cause i like tom’s vids. Tom roasted everything about that fact for an hour. It’s alright. Cause tom is my friend. Im convinced of that.
Tom Scott's public speaking skills are to die for. I wonder what practice or journey Tom went through to be THIS good at public speaking? He oozes charisma and authority, and audiences can't help but be captivated by him. I'd love to know how he became such a master at public speaking as an aspiring public speaker myself.
So true. I accidentally clicked on the video expecting a talk about Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but then found myself captivated before even realizing this was not what I was looking for …
Because none of the "anti-vax" sentiment before COVID was dealing with a vaccines that skipped all the normal testing. I also don't recall anyone saying someone's life and livelihood should be destroyed for questioning any vax prior to COVID even if they disagreed with them.
Greetings from Finland. The Algorithm suggested I watch this video. I had never heard about Tom Scott. He spoke very well and the topic was interesting, so I listened to the end. I will now immediately look up other videos by and with Tom Scott. I am eagerly waiting to see what the Servers feed me...
And hopefully you'll find "Citation Needed", which is just a bunch of smart young British men cracking jokes around a random subject. Amazingly funny,.
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@davidgustavsson4000 I heard that decreases battery life a lot. Like halves it. You'll probably get the same performance and more battery life from anything else that's half the price.
"In more than fifteen years of publishing on the internet, Tom has visited the High Arctic, passed out in a centrifuge, and somehow got three million people to watch a video about why the British plug is a great invention." That last one perfectly captures the brilliance of his channel XD
*He's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad. No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@HighestRank What came first: the chicken or the egg? Was it the algorithm recommending this video that brought them here, or was it this person's trust in the algorithm to provide an engaging video? Both contributed, but determining the #1 main contributor of this outcome is all a matter of perspective.
I watched another video titled "There is No Algorithm for Truth", which discussed the mathematics, information theory, and logic which proved that. So the misguided "algorithm" (in Tom's sense) thought I would like this one. I enjoyed a few of his videos in the past, and knew *that* sort of thing seemed an unlikely topic for him, so I clicked out of curiosity. And was surprised but not disappointed.
I was expecting something along the lines of it being impossible to find the objective truth. (The scientific method tries, but it technically only eliminates bad answers) Not disappointed its about machine learning "algorithms" used to curate our content and the consequences thereof.
This lecture is a lot to think about. I'm noticing that I feel uncomfortable with how some of it applies to my behaviors and beliefs - this makes me even more glad to have watched it. Thank you, Tom Scott, and the Royal Institution, for producing and sharing this video with us.
It makes me realize how people react to content, and how a large part really do care more about people. It sounds obvious, and it's been said many times, but his examples and references were insightful, as they did relate to the non-Internet world as well. I suppose more people get into "payed friendship" relation since social media times, even if they weren't much into "offline" stars before. A lot of communication has became that way, even for people who aren't famous (yet), which is why it starts in less obvious ways. It seems more people are adopting this behavior while trying to make a living online. A danger that somehow was felt, uncomfortable, but had to be heard in a clear way to fully realize.
@@aronhighgrove4100 Of course streaming in it self is a complex situation since the reason why some stream is to actually get friends. That is the streamer also gain a social benefit from streaming and do not expect any donations. Some feeling even bad about taking donations (and some refusing to do so). So the whole Parasocial relationship situation is more a grey scale in modern media then something very black and while like old broadcast media. This also goes for other new media like blogging and twittering where a lot of people do so at start as for social reason. Some becoming influencers later on. And some do it of course just to increase there media presence if there already known figure. On top of that we also have the situation where a lot of people seek out these new media, not to communicate with the Creator, but with like-minded fans. I know that when I my self use the chat function or post function in a lot of new media my comments are not aimed at the Creator but other people frequenting the chat, forum or what-have-you.
"This should exist, and I'm willing to donate money to make that happen" is pretty much why I have the Patreon subscriptions that I do. I'm happy to pay for worthy content.
Same. Wintergatan and Standupmaths to name a few of them. I don't donate loads, I can't, but unlike some kid streaming games it's original and not self sustaining.
Let's hope the things you are helping to fund aren't the downfall of society. Let's all bow down and praise the dystopian nightmare, total surveillance control grid, total tracking of the global population "new normal", that they are telling us all about, while we ignore and call anyone questioning it a "crazy conspiracy theorist". George Orwell's 1984 here we are.
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
That was fantastic. As Tom explained, the algorithm is always dangerous and I think we all have a moral imperative to never believe something outright from someone on the internet. Creators have a responsibility to fact-check as much as they possibly can and be honest if something is opinion like Tom was. And we as viewers have a responsibility to double-check and cross-reference what we hear from educators, to inform them when what they say doesn't match up with the consensus or reality, and to protect others from falling into the same mistakes.
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
I don't think the algorithm is necessarily dangerous, and it's definitely not _always_ dangerous. It's also most definitely not what Tom implied with his statements. He even states it as a necessity to deal with loads of information and, in the case of TH-cam, videos that can't be dealt with by people. But the human aspect shouldn't be ruled out, at least, that's what I got out of it.
@@SeganHealthHacker I find the topic interesting and find the presentation to be rather good regardless of whether I agree with it or not. However, I'd rather watch George Carlin at least once a week. I think I'll find more truth there!
I did not realise this, and now I hate you for making me watch the whole thing again while fixated on his hands. But I will admit you are right, he is excellent at using his hands to subtly emphasise his deliveries and points.
From all of 33:44 to 45:45 really hit me like a truck. I realised that I literally only watch Tom Scott because of how charming he is to me as a person. He's so interesting, and funny and I feel like I have a personal friendship. I am barely interested in anything he talks about - I don't care about g - force or an island that has too much power, but I am interested in him. I enjoy all the memes made about him, the community about him. Literally, even look through these comments, all most all of them are about how he doesn't age, or how he only wears red shirts or something of the like. I literally only like Tom Scott for Tom Scott, and not for anything scientific he talks about.
*He's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad. No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@SeganHealthHacker, just out of interest, why do you think those things? I don’t think that Tom Scott has openly talked about his views on politics. Also, Peterson (from what I’ve seen) and Scott have very different genres of videos, Peterson is much more political and Scott informational, so is that a fair comparison? I mean no disrespect to you, and you have every right to watch what you want to watch. I’m just interested in the reasoning behind the comment.
@@flyingsheep567 There's no use in trying to have a sincere conversation with someone like this. He looks like a total looney, but you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is well and all but.. if he looks like a looney, it's because he is. Go look at the rest of this comment section. He's sent this same non sequitur reply to like 15 other comments. It's not like he's trying to spark up a conversation with it or anything, he just somehow has gotten himself to think that reading this alone will convince someone. It might appear laudable to try to engage with an idea you don't necessarily agree with, but with a lot of people, engaging is really just a waste of breath because they're not here to listen. In this case, this guy's engaging in some real looney behaviour and clearly isn't the type of person you can hold an actual conversation with.
Conversely I mainly watch him because I am genuinely interested in everything he talks about and his style of videos explain it in a way that I can understand.
Omori If you're on Android, try NewPipe from the F-Droid repositories. Alternatively, the TH-cam mobile website is a buggy piece of whatsit and just doesn't play adverts.
i actually emailed Tom and he replied to me. i was so stunned and he was lovely. i was just about starting content creation and bless him, i asked thee worst questions... but he replied and was super nice about it. something i am sure he has been asked a million times. i thought that really reflected a lot about what type of person he must be deep down.
Wasn't he referring to Darren Brown,that magician he talks about in the middle? The one he's stealing the trick of "show something in the beginning then set it aside, let them forget, and then bring it back in the end"? He's doing that: Talking about the algorithm pof truth in the beginning, putting it aside and bringing it back in the end.
It's much more amazing than that. Tom Scott obviously does not have knowledge on youtubes algorithm (only yt does) but talks about twitter, twitch, discord, reddit, etc in such detail and clarity. The unexpected tangent about the parasocial and its connection to the main story was also so mindblowing. One of my favourite videos ever!
Aki San a lot of Brady’s videos don’t feature Brady himself, and instead feature the experts - Brady stands in for the viewer, asking the questions to help the conversational nature of the video continue, giving that parasocial relationship Tom described.
I feel like the points about parasocial relationships and the points about fact-checking clash in this very messy way. Part of the very reason people crave these parasocial relationships is because they want to get their information from someone they trust; even if it's just information about drama or video games. Building trust through vulnerability and exposing your personal life including problems is how we operate in our personal lives and of course this is sinisterly manipulated for profit but I frankly don't know how else to do it. Even if you want to check someone's reputation for factual accuracy, you quickly run into a recursive "Who watches the watchmen" problem. If I'm not an expert and there's nigh-infinite content supporting every stance on every issue, how am I suppose to determine what's true? You can lecture me about how to verify things independently but you know most people aren't epistemologists, either. The simple, and deeply human solution has always been to find people you trust and that trust is built through human connection and vulnerability or at least a convincing simulacrum of it.
this is a very good point. As humans, we largely function by heuristics, because time-effective decisions are vastly more important for survival than highest possible accuracy (or so I'm told by sources I trusted :D), therefore we often need to identify people we can trust on certain topics so that *we* do not have to research them ourselves. But naturally trust is largely dependent on social relationships - after all, how can we believe something someone says if we don't believe the speaker is talking in our best interest? On the other hand, if the speaker is our friend (or we think he is), that part at least is taken care of. Obviously the problem here is that this very basic idea doesn't work if we believe someone to be our friend when he's actually not, which is often the case for these kinds of relationships. Naturally, the speaker could also earn viewer trust by demonstrating sound research principles, or good ability to argue their beliefs - but I can also say I wouldn't watch someone I don't like (because of any personal information I've acquired on them) despite those things being there.
This is a solid point. I feel this a lot when Hank Green vents about people needing to trust experts more (regarding climate change, usually, but also medical science). And I always think, "what are those experts doing to earn my trust? What are they doing to repair trust that has been broken?" Hank sometimes comes worryingly close to arguing that someone who is an authority figure is inherently trustworthy until proven otherwise, but that belief has obviously been shaped by his status (socioeconomic and otherwise): legal authorities, for example, tended to treat him with basic human decency and give him the benefit of the doubt. Political leaders and government authorities make laws prioritizing the wants and needs of people in his categories. Other people have learned from personal experience to distrust authorities until proven otherwise. The question of, "how can I earn and repair the trust of the public?" is a serious one, and it can be answered ethically or unethically. But it the problem won't be solved by people who hold "the public" in contempt.
00:10 Introduction 06:41 Part 1: The Algorithm 23:08 Part 2: The State of Science Communication 33:49 Part 3: Parasocial 45:49 Part 4: Echo Chambers and Nazi Bars 56:17 Part 5: There Is No Algorithm for Truth
@@ulalaFrugilega Some scientists, engineers, and designers may focus so much on hitting a certain goal that they don't care what gets worse in the process of reaching it. For example: many people want black Americans to make the exact amount of money as white Americans- that's a measure of money. The issue with this is even if they were given enough money, that wouldn't account for all kinds of factors that would put them back in lower statuses. So you'd have to perpetually keep redistributing to them taxpayer money in order to make up that racial wage gap that is there. That's a huge burden on the taxpayer. That's bad science. A better way to approach the issue is to find other ways to help them out without outright redistribution. Does that help?
A big thanks to Tom for not wasting hours of my life with lengthy intros, theme songs, or self-indulgent monologues about how life as a TH-camr is so quirky and hard. One of the few TH-camrs I can stand to watch again and again.
Really amazing talk. Realizing there is no simple solution to all the misinformation being circulated out there by misinformed or ill-intentioned people is really frightening, because well informed citizenry is crucial for any democratic society.
A lot of people are very opposed to that notion, but democracy indeed begins to fail when a large portion of the population is swayed by populism and misinformation. Suddenly you don't just have sides arguing about how to approach a problem, now you also have sides objectively incorrectly arguing that the problem is of a different nature, that it doesn't exist or that there's a completely different problem which needs attention. And the logical extreme of that is: If misinformed and emotional voters are impossible to effectively eliminate, does that make the premise of the current model of democracy in modern world unrealistic?
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@CanIHasThisName Every weakness of people is also a weakness of a person. An individual can be swayed with misinformation just as well as ten. Populism is a tricky subject to grapple with, because although it has lead to bad outcomes, the central premises are often true: some people have substantially more power than others, this power imbalance often causes conflicts of interests, in those conflicts of interest those with disproportional power often hold the same interests, and if power is the cause of a conflict of interests, it's often a bad idea to maintain that power. If I had to guess, the reason that populism can lead to bad outcomes is because its a political shakeup which let's bad actors in. Like, imagine if there was a throne somewhere, and that throne gave you some sort of power if you sat in it. Populism would cause people to push the ruler out of the throne. After that, you just have to hope the next person to sit on it is there with good intentions. Let's talk about the misinformation part again. More specifically, let's talk about Technocracy. Under a technocracy, what you would typically expect is that the base system is that of expert appointees. Each branch of the government could deal with what's in their domain, the economists deal with the economy, the climate scientists deal with climate, and so on. They would conduct studies to find out if something is true. Now, what happens if theres a conflict of interests here? Something we forget now that these revolutions have been fought and won is that monarchies were supported in part just because of logistics. These logistics were, in the end, wrong. If a yes or no on a policy would make people happier, democracy will tend towards picking that option. So democracy always has that direct utilitarian benefit. A technocracy would hopefully try to have the best interests of the people in mind, but in the end there is no good particle. If you value human happiness or the word of god or doing the right thing even when it doesn't help anyone, you cant derive that from anywhere. And if the technocrats dont share the same values, you dont really have a good way of dealing with them. If a democratic majority is all it takes to get rid of technocracy, well, the line between democracy and technocracy is fuzzy. If a supermajority is required, all the technate needs to do to keep power is use misinformation to keep a minority on their side, with scientific legitimacy and much more power backing them up.
The problem with misinformation is it is now the norm even in the mainstream. So when we talk about limiting misinformation were actually just talking about limiting extremes opinions (which would be desirable) and second opinions on the mainstream feeds (which is not desirable). I will give an example, all over BBC and other international government broadcasters, which you assume are the lest biased, were flooded a bunch of stories about how rent control in Sweden failed. The stories were a thinly vailed attack on the interest of renters in favor of the banking system. The articles were full of misinformation, not backed by the data, and purposefully crafted to misinform. Sweden's rent control issues are actually better for access and price even in its worse situation than in Canada in its best situations. We have professionals here that not only cannot afford house they are spending over half their income to share a basement in old single family homes. One case was 7 men in a basement two of which worked for a bank. Half were so embarrassed they refused to be filmed. In the articles on how Sweden's rent control failed, they covered a professional new graduate that had a whole apartment to themselves that was paying the same amount as the people in a shared basement here.
@@SeganHealthHacker You express the real issue with social media, that it’s far too easy to find and then focus on those who share your values, meaning you become highly biased and prejudiced, lacking any impartiality. Peterson is equally extreme in his perspectives which, as Tom says, is a win win in the social media circus run for attention span and advertising revenue based on retaining viewing till the video ends.
The way he describes Twitch subscription process puts it into a different light. It sort of sounds like a concept to a creative dystopian novel. Never thought about it like that.
It's one of those things where I'm starting to think I'm somehow too old to get it. The idea that I'd give someone money to watch them play a videogame is completely alien to me.
@@CanIHasThisName i dont do it myself, but i can sort of understand some of the reasons. After all, plently of people pay money to watch, say, their favourite footballer play, or to listen to a live performance form a singer, etc, etc. the fact that the barrier to entry to playing a video game is quite low is an added bonus, in that by watching a streamer, you can be in the position of listening to them explain their thoughts about a given tactic, or see their solution to a problem, then think "yhea, i might try that", then boot up the game to try it yourself. added to that the sucessful streamers are often not the most skilled players, but the most entertaining ones, ones who can blabber for hours in inane commentary, and play the game with half an eye on the chat. for some, it becomes like hanging out at a friends house while he plays a game.....just done virtually. like i said, i dont watch streams myself, but i can understand some of the drivers. it doesnt appeal to me, but i can see the appeal
@@xerxeskingofking You almost have a point. Problem is 99.99% of people dont do that, they are paying for friendship and attention. So many streamers wont even talk to you if you dont donate. I personally have never donated, but I see it happen. The subs have this feeling of superiority over non subs.
@@columbus8myhw You're right, I don't know Tom personally, but that doesn't mean I can't respect somebody because of their talent, and talking directly to someone in comments doesn't make us friends.
This is my first translation work. The time now is 26th of Jan, 2020, during the China Wuhan outbreak It cause a surge of clickbait and conspericy theroy on our social media I wasn't able to go out in fear of getting caught by the virus so I took the time translating it. Thank you, Tom, for explaining this wonderful subject, the timing could not had been better.
Keep up the good work fella. Translating is a core component of communication and communication is the key factor in trust between peers, its a very important yet often underplayed field of study and work. I do encourage anyone to continue in such a field of study as it is not an easy one for sure! politely, you did made a mistake in your comment, you wrote "conspericy" when what I think you meant is "conspiracy". You also wrote "theroy" when you probably meant "Theory". best of luck in your future endeavors. Have a good day.
@@TheSpectralFX As q layman, I am an expert pn the subject you speak of. I could fill several texts with the dynamics of relationships and casual encounters that are created or effectual through communication. It would be from a specific foundation that I've built my observations on. Its something that has always dominated my social orlentation, and I am always surprised that people havent thought about it. I believe your statement about communication relies on an assumption, that the communicating is Truthful and Honorable. That would be the foundation from which I work. Once one defines Truth,the roles of moral principles become easy to see. And a failure to communicate Honorably can easily be traced through relationships to show it picking away at it block by block..... Learning Honorable communication, that is, the spreading of Truth, is a skill, a metaphysical skill of courage, and a necessary component of learning to recognize the Truth, and of living a life of spiritual Truth. Peace
公孙全, I'd love to see your translated copy if it's available. I hope you're doing well and having an interesting time thinking about information, human societies, and truth.
(ಠ_ರ) Well that’s a grim perspective. That seems to be an esteem issue or maybe you’re surrounded by morons? If you think you’re smart enough to identify the worst maybe use your Boolean logic to identify the best, and associate with them instead.
databang thus leaving the sub-par majority to drive us off a cliff anyway? Finding ‘the best’ in your example is effectively just locking yourself in an intellectual ivory tower if you happen to be blessed/cursed with a brain capable of deeper thought. If the majority still lose the match for us, we all still go down...
Solgato Blogopogo I spend my whole life wondering how to save the world. The only time’s I feel like I might have something even vaguely viable, I’m definitely into supervillain territory.
19:40 this made me pause the video, it hit home so hard, i get videos recommended about navy seal trainings, free solo climbers, the barkley marathon runners, elite powerlifters, and I've always felt like that's the real bar for success. I could never understand my mom being anti vax, while i could understand the healthy skepticism she had at the start. It is absolutely mindblowing that it applies for everything, no wonder that anxiety and insecurity are so prevelant
I know I have an odd name, so it sounds like I’m being sarcastic, but legitimately thank you for your input, and for not just falling in line with the views around you, and holding on to your own opinions; because there are very few people who do that nowadays. Keep your head up and remember that your opinion about you is all that matters.
In the spirit of this video, imma do a thing. "Your opinion about you is all that matters" That same sentance can be either... A very encouraging thing to say to someone in a vulnerable place, or alternatively, a horrible thing to say to someone in dire need of re-evaluating their life. Like a smoker, or homeopathic fanatic, or violently racist individual. Its weird how the tools to fight depression can be used to affirm the zealots of the world. Human brains are strange (and i live in one!)
@@willb5278 You don't live in a brain, you *are* the brain, you're just controlling this body by giving tiny electric shocks to a system of wires that makes the muscles pull or relax.
A hot tip for trying to convince her of truth over vaccines, the falsehoods of some vaccines (homeopathic ones, and ones with decreasing efficacy in just weeks) and the utter pit of detritus that are those essential oil antivaxxer groups: The more you attack someone, the more they will hate you. They will no longer listen to you, as you become their enemy.
I don't think I've ever watched anything on this channel before, but yeah, it came up at the side and I thought "Wait, Tom Scott did a lecture there? That looks interesting... but an hour long? I'll have to watch it later... but I'll just click it so that it goes into my history". Still here an hour later after watching the entire thing in one go.
So you're telling me it would be less interesting to you if someone more knowleadgable and well suitedfor the topic, but also less recognizable was the presenter? Yeah, same here.
Something I learnt at university was a theory called "the spiral of silence". Basically, people who hear thoughts like theirs spoken in public - whether in the media or just on the street - are more likely to also voice their opinion. If you don't hear voices/thoughts like yours, you assume ~nobody~ thinks the way you do, and so to avoid conflict you won't voice your opinion. Which is weird because it's usually (actually) the minority who are the loudest.
@@crazydragy4233 not really a paradox. People are social creatures and we like to be accepted and respected by our peers. So if we think something that we think isn't a popular opinion, we will naturally keep it to ourselves. That's all the spiral of silence is, essentially, but on a larger scale.
@@doctorspockable I meant it in a sort of way that, it's natural behaviour that's hard to go against, but necessary to for systems to work and for everyone to live a better life
we talked about this in a sociology course, too, it's a fascinating phenomenon. It doesn't even have to be a 'loud' minority. People even start actively saying things they don't really agree with because they think it will make them more socially accepted, and it does, although solely because others belief the same. like complaining about the rain. do you really feel a few drops are so terrible? or is it just that everyone always says so, and thus you join in
I referenced this talk in my personal statement for my UCAS university application last year and now I'm studying at the University of York, of which Tom is an alumnus 😂
I will add tho, the way the algorithm pushes to extremes isnt ALWAYS bad, it drove me from watching the slow mo guys all the way to watching star talk and PBS spacetime and Nilered and tons of other more "hardcore" sciences. Even to engineering and even to something like this explaining some of the science and reasons why the algorithms works and dont work.
29:00 I've spent a good chunk of today selecting videos to watch based on the fact that Tom Scott was in them--whether it was Computerphile, his channel, or this video. I'm also less likely to watch a video if I think someone else will be talking during it. ... I've never been called out this hard before.
And now Tom has planted the doubt in me: Do I like him because he's smart, charming, honest and has a British accent? Or because he's all of that stuff but he's also white? I don't want the second question to be true.
@@georgelloydgonzalez wtf? That is not something you would doubt, you would know. He is merely bringing up his colour to make a point of the algorithm as a whole.
"It isn't about the game, it's about the person playing it." So true. The best let's play I ever saw featured a guy who was playing the game. Over time, he made friends with a girl because of the game and she started joining in on the videos. By the end of the series, they were expecting their first child. I wasn't watching because I cared so much about the monsters they were farming, I was watching because I had fallen in love with the human story that had grown around it.
That's a good conspiracy theory you have there. Would you like to radicalize together by starting an anti-twitter hate group? You can join my discord server if you want.
What if a creeper creeps up on you and says "I love you" by exploding in your face ? Is that creepy or fine or both or neither or some quantum thing like : creepy fine refined creepers that never exploded in your face for always because of creepy love reasons that were never expressed all the time ? You tell me, because you are the truth spouter here. Thanks in advance. Have a nice day by the way. You're welcome to answer, stranger.
"You are the thing ...." No. We are not a thing. I have no poínt yet I have many .... "Is it like the thing you speak ...." I don't speak a thing. Phony.... Grammophony.... Smart phony.... *Stereo Pony*
I had quite the interesting "Moment" while watching this. Shortly after the "it's a small line between liking the Creation and the Creators" (obviously paraphrasing here), I decided I wanted to share this video with someone I'm friends with. And during the talk I always thought, that I am certainly one of the persons who likes the Creations and doesn't really care about the creators... but what did I write my friend? "Damn I love this guy:" And while I still think that I am a person that values the Work>Artist, I didn't realise until that very moment how atached I grew to Tom Scott as a creator per se to the point of it almost being Creepy. I mean I watch his Channel and his creations, but I also recently got recommended an older Game show where a Young Tom Scott was a participant, and I watched it because of him, didn't watch another Episode before or since, just goes to show that for most people, an atachment to the Person seems almost inevitable, perhaps not equally as strong for everyone, but I think it's still there.
Watching this video in 2022, I feel that the TH-cam algorithm governing the ''shorts'' video format is different than the one governing the regular feed. My interests are varied, I enjoyed military history, documentaries on weapons, battles, warships and aircrafts. I enjoy science videos, mostly physics and astronomy. I also watch a lot of video essays on cinema, music or social issues, and some comedian bits here and there to light it all. My feed when I get on TH-cam is mostly fine and in touch with my tastes. However, when I click on a ''short'' video, it gets ugly really quick. For some reason, after a couple of clips on some fun facts about a movie or an actor, a scene from Seinfeld and some cool shots of a plane taking off or something, I always end up getting videos of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, then some conspiracy right wing videos. Always. I thought it was funny at first, since when you look at the ''political'' channels I'm subscribed to, you'll find mostly leftish stuff, like PBS, TYT and others. But since I watch military stuff and some Bill Burr, the algorithm seems to assume that I'm a right-wing, weapon enthusiast, anti-feminism, pro-Trump dude. Those videos never come up in the normal feed, just in the shorts format. Very interesting.
"I should do my homewo ... wait a minute an hour-long video about something I have no idea what there talking about but I'm gonna listen to it anyways since it sounds smart, sign me up!"
I love your work, but also really like Tom: the way you think seeps through, you thrive for honesty and to actually fight disinformation; which is something not a lot of people do nowadays.
"As long as there's a human review" I've seen substantial evidence at this point that there isn't an actual human review option, unless you're already a massive channel with private contacts for TH-cam employees. But I guess the topic here is algorithms, not TH-cam's mismanagement.
There probably *is* human review, mostly there so they can in good faith affirm there is. It's just that is not even remotely staffed proportionately to the task and the backlog is effectively infinite unless you have means to skip the queue
this is completely true, even the humans I've spoken to, don't really even care or try to understand the issues you can face on youtube. You know having spoken to youtube employees and being there, even though I don't upload anymore.
When you said "Google, twitter, facebook...are essentially advertising companies", you were put on hold and I was taken to a car ad. The universe has a wicked sense of humor. The timing was impecable.
I think its related to their being a short pause at the end of the sentence, and youtube has an ad placement algorithm that tries to not cut people off mid sentence and loves to put ads at transitions in videos. (Which can be annoying, but sometimes it has perfect comedic timing)
This is why the idea of a singularity in AI is bunk. At least anytime soon. I've done a lot of work using FEA software to try to predict things, and these methods usually become garbage in garbage out at the slightest hint of complexity. Maybe it's just that my models are bad, but I don't find many people in engineering with the capacity to even challenge them. Studying ballistics and chain of events involving impact is highly unpredictable. AI can only be used to solve problems with well-defined scopes. The link to this conversation being that computers must be told peripheral truths in order to solve problems. The day we fully understand bird migration and embryonic development will be the tipping point for getting algorithms for truth; when we can finally apply real Darwinian pressures to a computer to develop general artificial intelligence. Until then, computer scientists are trying to develop a brain with no underlying biology, which I suspect does not even make sense. A phenotype without a genotype is nothing.
40:00 Its disturbing that monetizing relationships is happening on such a grand scale. Seems a slippery slope to cults of personality, and authoritarianism.
I have what I believe to be a more important hypothetical: Imagine you have a controversial opinion. Perhaps you believe a powerful person, group, organisation or government is responsible for something atrocious. You aren't completely convinced but you think there is good supporting evidence for this position. Now imagine tomorrow Google decides to prohibit or disincentivize content sharing this opinion. Would this make your opinion stronger or weaker? Now imagine the same situation but you hold the opposite position, you think there is good reason to doubt these claims but you have heard some reasonable sounding arguments from the other side. Now your opposition is silenced. How can you become sure your opposition is wrong when you aren't allowed to hear their arguments?
I find it interesting, Mass censorship always seems to be in an effort to prevent people from learning there's an opposition whatsoever, rather than preventing the opposition from gaining traction, because almost anybody with half a brain knows that if you're not allowed to talk about something, it's almost guaranteed to be important and/or threatening.
@@johntheos Then what about opinions that do advocate violence such as "overthrow the government"? Or conspiracies based on uncertainties or falsehoods? I think you are stating the blatantly obvious here but should we be censoring falsehoods and hate, by virtue of the contrapositive?
@@pzyckox What about things that are just wrong? An informative video about space and the solar system but the earth is just flat in it. How should children know what is correct when there are false facts all around.
I love when you hear him talking about setting up something, letting the viewers forget, and using it in the conclusion, and you then read the video title, remember what he said in the beginning, and realize that he is circumspectly talking about how he set up his own talk, which you actually forgot, leading into the realization that he used that technique to set up the technique itself. That is some beautiful meta goodness
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
Thank you so much to all the team at the RI for inviting me! The memory of lecturing in the Faraday Theatre is going to stay with me for a long time.
It is Truth we all should seek .
So how does it feel to stand, so to speak, on the shoulders of the giants in their own home?
Outstanding, same with your channels.
Thanks Tom
And you resisted the temptation to lecture everyone about the historic lectures that took place there. Very impressive.
Congrats on this and many other achievements in the last couple of years.
Came for Tom Scott.
Stayed to hear Tom Scott berate me for coming for Tom Scott.
accurate description of my experience
This! :-D
Same let us bond over our mutual parasocial relationship.
Same thought I had while watching it.
"Came for Tom Scott." ... phrasing...
...but no judgement
Rare footage of Tom Scott not wearing a red t-shirt
it's underneath the suit
Lol
White reflects the entirety of the light spectrum so he is wearing a "red" shirt.
@@No-uc6fg Touché
or gray hoodie
I will forever be jealous of Toms ability to keep an audience gripped on every word he says. And with that I now realise what he means by an authoritative voice…
It’s all about how he paces his sentences and how he stresses each word. The way he’s talking purposefully builds up a kind of tension, for lack of a better word
@@cerdic6305 i mean while that might be part of it, i think the most important thing is the content of what he says, because if you don't know what to say, then your ability to pace sentences won't matter
@A Guy: You might hope so, but I'm not convinced. The content of what he says here would seem to argue against that.
Jealous is a bit negetive now isn't it? Try impressed insted;-)
I learned how to do this to an extend with media training, it's crazy how a slight difference in tone can change your whole vibe
Fact: the algo recommended this, i clicked cause i like tom’s vids.
Tom roasted everything about that fact for an hour.
It’s alright. Cause tom is my friend. Im convinced of that.
Strictly speaking , we are his friends, he is not our friend. I'm okay with that.
@@ICountFrom0 Brilliant, you guys. :)
@@ICountFrom0 one of the harder lessons in life: Friendship is not a symmetric relation.
@@Animaniac-vd5st And non transitive. And that sucks the big one too.
@@ICountFrom0 most shockingly, it's not even reflexive for many of us.
That moment when the algorithm summons you to learn about itself in a video.
Same here. This one's been appearing in my recommendations for months.
It's trying to communicate!
@@JontyLevine Mine too. Though to be fair, it _is_ an hour long, so I took my time in getting around to it.
@@AaronOfMpls but you watched it so the video about itself got a point.
And I have a conspiracy theory that TH-cam recommendation system has a goal of applying Schema Therapy on its users. :)
Very interesting talk. This chap should start his own TH-cam channel or something....
I almost wooshed myself.
He's a blowhard. Well spoken, intelligent yet corrupt.
@@DanFrederiksen Why is he corrupt?
@@geammanDW by his own admission, I guess is the joke. Do you watch Tom's channel?
@@arsenymakarov6961 No, I never saw him before. Its just an honest question.
Tom Scott's public speaking skills are to die for. I wonder what practice or journey Tom went through to be THIS good at public speaking? He oozes charisma and authority, and audiences can't help but be captivated by him. I'd love to know how he became such a master at public speaking as an aspiring public speaker myself.
That's more than a decade of experience for you.
@@kgb4150 The only answer to the question "How can someone get so good at x?" Practice. The answer is always practice.
Autism. He really harnessed it as a force for good.
It's because he dressed up as a pirate and accidentally won some student elections once
So true. I accidentally clicked on the video expecting a talk about Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but then found myself captivated before even realizing this was not what I was looking for …
Part of me is disappointed and disturbed that Tom is not wearing a red t-shirt.
Yes
For 49.95 you can call the hotline to discuss.
I guess I don't need to make a new comment to say the same thing.
Very parasocial comment
Although due respect has to be shown to the venue, not even a red tie....
I am so disappointed two.
"We'll get back to that later." He's trying to make us watch the whole video! ;)
Surprised to see you here😆👍 Have a nice day!
@@ikkeolve You only replied that because you believe that you are Sl1pg8r's friend 😉
@@misode Oh no, it went full circle 😳
He learned that from Darren Brown.
and got baack literally 3 min before the end of the video
I love listening to my friend Tom Scott. He’s factual sounding, with relatable moments. And he’s my friend and I’m not his.
Son: Dad, I need $45 for Bruce Springsteen!
Dad: You can pay your friend back next week.
I never though that sitcom joke would become literal.
This is the best comment I've read in a while. :D Cheers for the intelligent laugh!
Thats what I thought.
The Elven Jedi gonna assume you’re referring to Paul Robinson , cause his joke was funny.
@@oxybrightdark8765 exactly what i thought! sad pikachu
Incredible that this came out pre-pandemic. The part about "antivax" hit especially hard.
I thought that too. I had to check the date.
Where was this?
Because none of the "anti-vax" sentiment before COVID was dealing with a vaccines that skipped all the normal testing. I also don't recall anyone saying someone's life and livelihood should be destroyed for questioning any vax prior to COVID even if they disagreed with them.
@@crysis_averted The pre-2020 antivax stuff was manufactured to get people ready to be angry later on if they ever needed to push a rushed vaccine.
@@crysis_averted The diseases are very efficient at destroying lives and livelihoods ... that's why we have the vaccines.
"You gotta remember, all these big companies, Google, Facebook, Twitter, they are essentially advertising compani-" (Ad cuts in)
Same here, that exact moment! And the kind you can't click away…
If you want to get less ads, use an ad blocker
mine was half an hour long
@@NatoBoram I feel that suffering ads is my way of paying for the content.
This video had ads? People don't have free ad blockers running?
Greetings from Finland. The Algorithm suggested I watch this video. I had never heard about Tom Scott. He spoke very well and the topic was interesting, so I listened to the end. I will now immediately look up other videos by and with Tom Scott. I am eagerly waiting to see what the Servers feed me...
Which will lead you to Computerphille because of his cameos there!
And hopefully you'll find "Citation Needed", which is just a bunch of smart young British men cracking jokes around a random subject. Amazingly funny,.
The TH-cam Algorithm always has a plan.
All hail The TH-cam Algorithm
@@megatrollificus I have fond memories of this pathway.
Thanks Mr. Finland
It's been 2 years - EDIT: 4 years.
And this video ages better and better. Tom just nailed both the presentation and the framing of his talk.
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@SeganHealthHacker LOL he's not anti-freedom. Youre confused.
@@SeganHealthHacker you are confused if you think left-wing is pro billionaire.
@@SeganHealthHacker better believe that ya weird then.
I would recommend you watching Get Out!
@@luker.6967 It's a broad generalization but he is not wrong when you look at what is considered mainstream left.
me: *scrolls down a bit*
also me: "Ah, there are my people. They're the ones that are right."
scrolled down just after he said that
relatable
@Im this guy's Other account who are*** correct
@@HighestRank 56:05 why are you falsely correcting this - you are not my people
*Liked the comment by a person who is right and is one of my people*.
So, Tom Scott is the only guy who is able to give a public speech without a Macbook. Impressive
Can't bodge on a Mac.
First thing I noticed.
@@melonduofromage6058 what self respecting nerd wants to own a Mac? Most nerds run Linux
@@MarceldeJong you can totally install Linux on a Mac. More like what self respecting nerd would pay that much extra for the hardware?
@@davidgustavsson4000 I heard that decreases battery life a lot. Like halves it. You'll probably get the same performance and more battery life from anything else that's half the price.
I do this game, everytime somebody says “uhm” in a video I take a shot of tequilia. I’ve now been sober for an entire hour..
His oration's insane. A little too quick for my tastes, but otherwise a total master.
4:06
5:59 I've found that he's says "uhm" directly after telling a joke during the applause
He's learned the trick of replacing uhms with a short bit of silence.
He said "uh" at 37:46 but it fit in so naturally with the sentence I didn't notice it the first time I watched this.
"In more than fifteen years of publishing on the internet, Tom has visited the High Arctic, passed out in a centrifuge, and somehow got three million people to watch a video about why the British plug is a great invention."
That last one perfectly captures the brilliance of his channel XD
Tom Scott's voice is getting more and more authoritative these days.
Wot? Wdym?
@@mayankraj2294 they mean that it might not be true or untrue. But is is definitively authoritative.
Lololololol
First listen. Ill take ya as a warning..
Authortitiv
Somehow this lecture gets more and more relevant with each passing year.
"Somehow" uh, social media companies still make their profits off ads and all of us would like to be making more money?
Lecture was on September 27, 2019. There has only been 1
@@possoumous7266 well 2 now but still very relevant
Yeah it's almost like a problem from only 2 years ago is still around today.
*He's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad. No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
ironically enough, i'm here because the algorithm recommended this to me.
@@HighestRank What came first: the chicken or the egg?
Was it the algorithm recommending this video that brought them here, or was it this person's trust in the algorithm to provide an engaging video? Both contributed, but determining the #1 main contributor of this outcome is all a matter of perspective.
Tho, ignoring an algorithm also is an algorithm and therefore fallible.
The machines learn from us; keep making thoughtful, intelligent choices. We can all help influence how the algorithms grow and change.
What so ironic about this
@@HighestRank Deterministic probabilities ;)
I watched another video titled "There is No Algorithm for Truth", which discussed the mathematics, information theory, and logic which proved that. So the misguided "algorithm" (in Tom's sense) thought I would like this one. I enjoyed a few of his videos in the past, and knew *that* sort of thing seemed an unlikely topic for him, so I clicked out of curiosity. And was surprised but not disappointed.
I was expecting something along the lines of it being impossible to find the objective truth. (The scientific method tries, but it technically only eliminates bad answers)
Not disappointed its about machine learning "algorithms" used to curate our content and the consequences thereof.
link?
This lecture is a lot to think about. I'm noticing that I feel uncomfortable with how some of it applies to my behaviors and beliefs - this makes me even more glad to have watched it.
Thank you, Tom Scott, and the Royal Institution, for producing and sharing this video with us.
Oh yes. Tom Scott can sometimes have that effect on you. ;)
It makes me realize how people react to content, and how a large part really do care more about people. It sounds obvious, and it's been said many times, but his examples and references were insightful, as they did relate to the non-Internet world as well.
I suppose more people get into "payed friendship" relation since social media times, even if they weren't much into "offline" stars before.
A lot of communication has became that way, even for people who aren't famous (yet), which is why it starts in less obvious ways. It seems more people are adopting this behavior while trying to make a living online.
A danger that somehow was felt, uncomfortable, but had to be heard in a clear way to fully realize.
@@aronhighgrove4100 Of course streaming in it self is a complex situation since the reason why some stream is to actually get friends. That is the streamer also gain a social benefit from streaming and do not expect any donations. Some feeling even bad about taking donations (and some refusing to do so).
So the whole Parasocial relationship situation is more a grey scale in modern media then something very black and while like old broadcast media.
This also goes for other new media like blogging and twittering where a lot of people do so at start as for social reason. Some becoming influencers later on. And some do it of course just to increase there media presence if there already known figure.
On top of that we also have the situation where a lot of people seek out these new media, not to communicate with the Creator, but with like-minded fans. I know that when I my self use the chat function or post function in a lot of new media my comments are not aimed at the Creator but other people frequenting the chat, forum or what-have-you.
"This should exist, and I'm willing to donate money to make that happen" is pretty much why I have the Patreon subscriptions that I do. I'm happy to pay for worthy content.
Same. Wintergatan and Standupmaths to name a few of them. I don't donate loads, I can't, but unlike some kid streaming games it's original and not self sustaining.
@@woutervanr I especially like The Science Asylum's and Tantacrul's work.
@@WarrenGarabrandt Me too, I think his work is too underrated.
Yea that's kind of what it's for ...🤔
Let's hope the things you are helping to fund aren't the downfall of society. Let's all bow down and praise the dystopian nightmare, total surveillance control grid, total tracking of the global population "new normal", that they are telling us all about, while we ignore and call anyone questioning it a "crazy conspiracy theorist". George Orwell's 1984 here we are.
"If you want to get fewer adverts, skip them!" *advert starts*
Yeah, had exactly the same thing...
I didn't, curiously.
Maybe your work has already paid off?
Same. Ad served up.
great advice from someone that makes money from ads /sarc
Mine was unskippable, too.
This guy is so believable. I love how cheekily honest and open he is and all the irony surrounding this.
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@SeganHealthHacker mald
@@SeganHealthHacker "jordan peterson" yep the pillar of stable and wise content
He has a bunch of channels and a new podcast called Latent :)
@@SeganHealthHacker Why are you going to every comment then copying and pasting the same thing? Like people care so much about your opinion.
Um... does this mean Tom isn't my friend...?
It shouldn't be too hard to find a Tom to be your friend, there might even be a few Tom Scotts around as both parts of the name are quite popular.
@@DomenBremecXCVI Yes, you're right. I'm sure it's even within reason to befriend a Tom Scott who is wearing a red T-shirt.
"I am not your friend" -Ludwig
@@DomenBremecXCVI ok but I live in el conurbano bonaerense
@@gonzalograu8451 try kidnapping one. Your own personal Tom Scott
24:20, I'm watching this because the name "Tom Scott" was in the title. This makes me uncomfortable
Well I like his work. He surely did a good work here too right? I'm not in love with handsome Scott, only with his work I swear!
Same
The thing that really gets me going though is did he intend for the photo to come up or did he intend for it to not come up so he could talk about it?
I didn't realize at first that this wasn't his channel in the first place. This whole lecture does seem like it's the sort of content he will upload.
I'm here because I like Tom Scott. Always watched the Christmas lectures every year, same institution, more grown up. I like a good institution :-)
“...they are essentially advertising companies”
It was at this time that TH-cam decided to deliver the first ad 😂
Markyroson Happened to me too...😂😂😂
gotta skip more. I had no ads for the whole hour
@@g___________v6850 same for me... I guess TH-cam realised they done goofed and demonatized the video 😂
Doesn't the uploader have control over that if they want?
Do some research into Adblock Plus and/or Ublock Origin.
That was fantastic. As Tom explained, the algorithm is always dangerous and I think we all have a moral imperative to never believe something outright from someone on the internet. Creators have a responsibility to fact-check as much as they possibly can and be honest if something is opinion like Tom was. And we as viewers have a responsibility to double-check and cross-reference what we hear from educators, to inform them when what they say doesn't match up with the consensus or reality, and to protect others from falling into the same mistakes.
The problem is that's too much work to most people
>we all have a moral imperative to never believe something outright
Should've ended the sentence there, to be honest.
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
I don't think the algorithm is necessarily dangerous, and it's definitely not _always_ dangerous. It's also most definitely not what Tom implied with his statements. He even states it as a necessity to deal with loads of information and, in the case of TH-cam, videos that can't be dealt with by people. But the human aspect shouldn't be ruled out, at least, that's what I got out of it.
@@SeganHealthHacker I find the topic interesting and find the presentation to be rather good regardless of whether I agree with it or not. However, I'd rather watch George Carlin at least once a week. I think I'll find more truth there!
I'm in awe at his ability to know what to do with his hands.
I did not realise this, and now I hate you for making me watch the whole thing again while fixated on his hands.
But I will admit you are right, he is excellent at using his hands to subtly emphasise his deliveries and points.
I dunno tom, looking fly and lecturing from Faraday's desk could easily be a runner up for best photo of you.
"The best photo that will ever be taken of me in my life"
Was totally expecting this to be having passed out after a high G loop.
Same, though.
I was hoping that too
same
Was waiting for the 'passed out on a front lawn after a party' shot.
Yeah lol, would've been funny if he put it in there
From all of 33:44 to 45:45 really hit me like a truck. I realised that I literally only watch Tom Scott because of how charming he is to me as a person. He's so interesting, and funny and I feel like I have a personal friendship. I am barely interested in anything he talks about - I don't care about g - force or an island that has too much power, but I am interested in him. I enjoy all the memes made about him, the community about him. Literally, even look through these comments, all most all of them are about how he doesn't age, or how he only wears red shirts or something of the like. I literally only like Tom Scott for Tom Scott, and not for anything scientific he talks about.
It's also sort of what happened with Nikocado Avocado, where they watched him just for him and the drama
*He's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad. No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@SeganHealthHacker, just out of interest, why do you think those things? I don’t think that Tom Scott has openly talked about his views on politics. Also, Peterson (from what I’ve seen) and Scott have very different genres of videos, Peterson is much more political and Scott informational, so is that a fair comparison?
I mean no disrespect to you, and you have every right to watch what you want to watch. I’m just interested in the reasoning behind the comment.
@@flyingsheep567 There's no use in trying to have a sincere conversation with someone like this. He looks like a total looney, but you're giving him the benefit of the doubt, which is well and all but.. if he looks like a looney, it's because he is. Go look at the rest of this comment section. He's sent this same non sequitur reply to like 15 other comments. It's not like he's trying to spark up a conversation with it or anything, he just somehow has gotten himself to think that reading this alone will convince someone. It might appear laudable to try to engage with an idea you don't necessarily agree with, but with a lot of people, engaging is really just a waste of breath because they're not here to listen. In this case, this guy's engaging in some real looney behaviour and clearly isn't the type of person you can hold an actual conversation with.
Conversely I mainly watch him because I am genuinely interested in everything he talks about and his style of videos explain it in a way that I can understand.
15:04 “these companies are essentially advertis-“
*AD PLAYS*
Well played TH-cam, well played
Oh he knew. It's like clockwork.
UBlock Origin. Check it out...
@@KipIngram on mobile
@@omori3007 Ah, sorry about that. Do help me spread the word on UBlock Origin, though - it's. a fantastic package for desktop Chrme browsers.
Omori
If you're on Android, try NewPipe from the F-Droid repositories.
Alternatively, the TH-cam mobile website is a buggy piece of whatsit and just doesn't play adverts.
Disliked.
He didn’t have his red shirt on
Fair
Where's his hoodie?
absolutely unacceptable
What didn't you like about this video?
E Swihart he didn’t have his red t shirt on silly
31:03 The moment I heard that distinctive laugh I knew it was Matt.
I like how it was Only matt xD
I hadn’t noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out!
And now this makes me sad because the talk is exactly the type of thing they would have had a park bench video on.
Sorry, not me!
@@MattGrayYES Matt has a laugh Doppelganger...
i actually emailed Tom and he replied to me. i was so stunned and he was lovely. i was just about starting content creation and bless him, i asked thee worst questions... but he replied and was super nice about it. something i am sure he has been asked a million times. i thought that really reflected a lot about what type of person he must be deep down.
I know this is two years later, but same for me. I messaged him about some freelance work maybe 6 or 7 years ago and he replied instantly
"And that brings us to the start, as mentioned in the middle."
I noticed it too
Wasn't he referring to Darren Brown,that magician he talks about in the middle? The one he's stealing the trick of "show something in the beginning then set it aside, let them forget, and then bring it back in the end"? He's doing that: Talking about the algorithm pof truth in the beginning, putting it aside and bringing it back in the end.
Tom's face hasn't aged at all in the years that I've been watching him
Tom doesn't exists :) It is an image created by the youtube algorithm :)
We could make a conspiracy theory out of this!
I realise that this is months later but:
You've obviously never watched Only Connect series 03 ep 04
He had to deal with more time zones.
only his hair ages
This is literally the most comprehensive video about why youtube works the way it does without even explicitly being about that.
the most comprehensive take on any given issue will always be a take on the larger family of issues that it is a part of.
It's much more amazing than that. Tom Scott obviously does not have knowledge on youtubes algorithm (only yt does) but talks about twitter, twitch, discord, reddit, etc in such detail and clarity. The unexpected tangent about the parasocial and its connection to the main story was also so mindblowing. One of my favourite videos ever!
@@hybmnzz2658 l
aged like wine
Presenting in that room... achievement unlocked.
right? Mr. Scott deserves it tho, he's credible as all get-out.
I’m glad the RI audience was introduced to Tom - his work is of the highest caliber. Thank you, Tom, for another well done lecture.
i think at this point we could plug brady harans channels and the people that are in those videos.
Aki San
a lot of Brady’s videos don’t feature Brady himself, and instead feature the experts - Brady stands in for the viewer, asking the questions to help the conversational nature of the video continue, giving that parasocial relationship Tom described.
thats what i said...
I feel like the points about parasocial relationships and the points about fact-checking clash in this very messy way. Part of the very reason people crave these parasocial relationships is because they want to get their information from someone they trust; even if it's just information about drama or video games. Building trust through vulnerability and exposing your personal life including problems is how we operate in our personal lives and of course this is sinisterly manipulated for profit but I frankly don't know how else to do it. Even if you want to check someone's reputation for factual accuracy, you quickly run into a recursive "Who watches the watchmen" problem. If I'm not an expert and there's nigh-infinite content supporting every stance on every issue, how am I suppose to determine what's true? You can lecture me about how to verify things independently but you know most people aren't epistemologists, either. The simple, and deeply human solution has always been to find people you trust and that trust is built through human connection and vulnerability or at least a convincing simulacrum of it.
this is a very good point. As humans, we largely function by heuristics, because time-effective decisions are vastly more important for survival than highest possible accuracy (or so I'm told by sources I trusted :D), therefore we often need to identify people we can trust on certain topics so that *we* do not have to research them ourselves. But naturally trust is largely dependent on social relationships - after all, how can we believe something someone says if we don't believe the speaker is talking in our best interest? On the other hand, if the speaker is our friend (or we think he is), that part at least is taken care of.
Obviously the problem here is that this very basic idea doesn't work if we believe someone to be our friend when he's actually not, which is often the case for these kinds of relationships.
Naturally, the speaker could also earn viewer trust by demonstrating sound research principles, or good ability to argue their beliefs - but I can also say I wouldn't watch someone I don't like (because of any personal information I've acquired on them) despite those things being there.
This is a solid point. I feel this a lot when Hank Green vents about people needing to trust experts more (regarding climate change, usually, but also medical science). And I always think, "what are those experts doing to earn my trust? What are they doing to repair trust that has been broken?"
Hank sometimes comes worryingly close to arguing that someone who is an authority figure is inherently trustworthy until proven otherwise, but that belief has obviously been shaped by his status (socioeconomic and otherwise): legal authorities, for example, tended to treat him with basic human decency and give him the benefit of the doubt. Political leaders and government authorities make laws prioritizing the wants and needs of people in his categories.
Other people have learned from personal experience to distrust authorities until proven otherwise.
The question of, "how can I earn and repair the trust of the public?" is a serious one, and it can be answered ethically or unethically. But it the problem won't be solved by people who hold "the public" in contempt.
I wish there was someway to save comments like yours from TH-cam
@@Joe--Thanks! You can always screenshot it or copy/paste, I suppose.
Sorry I uh... don't really have anything else to add to these responses!
+
The irony of this comments section being full of conspiracy theorists and people "outraged" that he made a brexit and far-right joke is stunning....
00:10 Introduction
06:41 Part 1: The Algorithm
23:08 Part 2: The State of Science Communication
33:49 Part 3: Parasocial
45:49 Part 4: Echo Chambers and Nazi Bars
56:17 Part 5: There Is No Algorithm for Truth
thank you kind sir
Top job lad
Comment for the algorithm
Comment for algorithm
Helping your fellow viewers - good on you!
“When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
-Goodheart’s Law.
Well said👍
@Steven Moore -Murphy's Law
I recall that concept dealt with at length in W. E. Deming's great work on Total Quality Control.
Could someone please explain that to me. It sounds profound, I'd like to get it.
@@ulalaFrugilega Some scientists, engineers, and designers may focus so much on hitting a certain goal that they don't care what gets worse in the process of reaching it.
For example: many people want black Americans to make the exact amount of money as white Americans- that's a measure of money. The issue with this is even if they were given enough money, that wouldn't account for all kinds of factors that would put them back in lower statuses. So you'd have to perpetually keep redistributing to them taxpayer money in order to make up that racial wage gap that is there. That's a huge burden on the taxpayer. That's bad science. A better way to approach the issue is to find other ways to help them out without outright redistribution.
Does that help?
A big thanks to Tom for not wasting hours of my life with lengthy intros, theme songs, or self-indulgent monologues about how life as a TH-camr is so quirky and hard. One of the few TH-camrs I can stand to watch again and again.
From "Two Drums and an Cymbal Fall Off a Cliff" to presenting from behind that legendary desk. Well done, Tom.
@Jan van Coppenhagen Me too :/
helss yeah
First one was better
Tom peaked early with that video, i still love him tho
@@nemtudom5074 1 hit wonder but still a cool dude
Really amazing talk. Realizing there is no simple solution to all the misinformation being circulated out there by misinformed or ill-intentioned people is really frightening, because well informed citizenry is crucial for any democratic society.
A lot of people are very opposed to that notion, but democracy indeed begins to fail when a large portion of the population is swayed by populism and misinformation. Suddenly you don't just have sides arguing about how to approach a problem, now you also have sides objectively incorrectly arguing that the problem is of a different nature, that it doesn't exist or that there's a completely different problem which needs attention.
And the logical extreme of that is: If misinformed and emotional voters are impossible to effectively eliminate, does that make the premise of the current model of democracy in modern world unrealistic?
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@CanIHasThisName
Every weakness of people is also a weakness of a person. An individual can be swayed with misinformation just as well as ten. Populism is a tricky subject to grapple with, because although it has lead to bad outcomes, the central premises are often true: some people have substantially more power than others, this power imbalance often causes conflicts of interests, in those conflicts of interest those with disproportional power often hold the same interests, and if power is the cause of a conflict of interests, it's often a bad idea to maintain that power.
If I had to guess, the reason that populism can lead to bad outcomes is because its a political shakeup which let's bad actors in. Like, imagine if there was a throne somewhere, and that throne gave you some sort of power if you sat in it. Populism would cause people to push the ruler out of the throne. After that, you just have to hope the next person to sit on it is there with good intentions.
Let's talk about the misinformation part again. More specifically, let's talk about Technocracy. Under a technocracy, what you would typically expect is that the base system is that of expert appointees. Each branch of the government could deal with what's in their domain, the economists deal with the economy, the climate scientists deal with climate, and so on. They would conduct studies to find out if something is true.
Now, what happens if theres a conflict of interests here? Something we forget now that these revolutions have been fought and won is that monarchies were supported in part just because of logistics. These logistics were, in the end, wrong. If a yes or no on a policy would make people happier, democracy will tend towards picking that option. So democracy always has that direct utilitarian benefit. A technocracy would hopefully try to have the best interests of the people in mind, but in the end there is no good particle. If you value human happiness or the word of god or doing the right thing even when it doesn't help anyone, you cant derive that from anywhere. And if the technocrats dont share the same values, you dont really have a good way of dealing with them. If a democratic majority is all it takes to get rid of technocracy, well, the line between democracy and technocracy is fuzzy. If a supermajority is required, all the technate needs to do to keep power is use misinformation to keep a minority on their side, with scientific legitimacy and much more power backing them up.
The problem with misinformation is it is now the norm even in the mainstream. So when we talk about limiting misinformation were actually just talking about limiting extremes opinions (which would be desirable) and second opinions on the mainstream feeds (which is not desirable). I will give an example, all over BBC and other international government broadcasters, which you assume are the lest biased, were flooded a bunch of stories about how rent control in Sweden failed. The stories were a thinly vailed attack on the interest of renters in favor of the banking system. The articles were full of misinformation, not backed by the data, and purposefully crafted to misinform. Sweden's rent control issues are actually better for access and price even in its worse situation than in Canada in its best situations. We have professionals here that not only cannot afford house they are spending over half their income to share a basement in old single family homes. One case was 7 men in a basement two of which worked for a bank. Half were so embarrassed they refused to be filmed. In the articles on how Sweden's rent control failed, they covered a professional new graduate that had a whole apartment to themselves that was paying the same amount as the people in a shared basement here.
@@SeganHealthHacker You express the real issue with social media, that it’s far too easy to find and then focus on those who share your values, meaning you become highly biased and prejudiced, lacking any impartiality. Peterson is equally extreme in his perspectives which, as Tom says, is a win win in the social media circus run for attention span and advertising revenue based on retaining viewing till the video ends.
I'm glad that the TH-cam algorithm knows that I like Tom Scott AND the RI !
Wow! Really? Is there really much cross over between Scott And the RI?
@@SilverMe2004 It appears so.
The way he describes Twitch subscription process puts it into a different light. It sort of sounds like a concept to a creative dystopian novel. Never thought about it like that.
Yeah, it’s kind of creepy how subs and donations work on Twitch.
The best dystopian is real world after all
It's one of those things where I'm starting to think I'm somehow too old to get it. The idea that I'd give someone money to watch them play a videogame is completely alien to me.
@@CanIHasThisName i dont do it myself, but i can sort of understand some of the reasons. After all, plently of people pay money to watch, say, their favourite footballer play, or to listen to a live performance form a singer, etc, etc. the fact that the barrier to entry to playing a video game is quite low is an added bonus, in that by watching a streamer, you can be in the position of listening to them explain their thoughts about a given tactic, or see their solution to a problem, then think "yhea, i might try that", then boot up the game to try it yourself.
added to that the sucessful streamers are often not the most skilled players, but the most entertaining ones, ones who can blabber for hours in inane commentary, and play the game with half an eye on the chat. for some, it becomes like hanging out at a friends house while he plays a game.....just done virtually.
like i said, i dont watch streams myself, but i can understand some of the drivers. it doesnt appeal to me, but i can see the appeal
@@xerxeskingofking You almost have a point. Problem is 99.99% of people dont do that, they are paying for friendship and attention. So many streamers wont even talk to you if you dont donate.
I personally have never donated, but I see it happen.
The subs have this feeling of superiority over non subs.
You look so comfortable doing this, Tom. Your hundreds of video presentations have put you in good stead. Great presentation
columbus8myhw lol?
@@columbus8myhw You're right, I don't know Tom personally, but that doesn't mean I can't respect somebody because of their talent, and talking directly to someone in comments doesn't make us friends.
He's been doing public speaking and master of ceremony gigs on the side for years. He's used to this stuff.
@@columbus8myhw how would you know who scott's friends are?
It should be noted that Tom has done these types of talks for nearly 10 years. Although 10 years ago he was doing graph comedy for thinking digital.
Wait did Tom Scott just call antivaxx social media campaigns before covid?
They already exist since the 1990s my friend, just not as prevalently
This is my first translation work.
The time now is 26th of Jan, 2020, during the China Wuhan outbreak
It cause a surge of clickbait and conspericy theroy on our social media
I wasn't able to go out in fear of getting caught by the virus so I took the time translating it.
Thank you, Tom, for explaining this wonderful subject, the timing could not had been better.
Keep up the good work fella. Translating is a core component of communication and communication is the key factor in trust between peers, its a very important yet often underplayed field of study and work. I do encourage anyone to continue in such a field of study as it is not an easy one for sure!
politely, you did made a mistake in your comment, you wrote "conspericy" when what I think you meant is "conspiracy". You also wrote "theroy" when you probably meant "Theory".
best of luck in your future endeavors.
Have a good day.
@@TheSpectralFX Hey anonymous friend and stranger, thanks for being so kind 😊
@@TheSpectralFX As q layman, I am an expert pn the subject you speak of. I could fill several texts with the dynamics of relationships and casual encounters that are created or effectual through communication. It would be from a specific foundation that I've built my observations on. Its something that has always dominated my social orlentation, and I am always surprised that people havent thought about it. I believe your statement about communication relies on an assumption, that the communicating is Truthful and Honorable. That would be the foundation from which I work. Once one defines Truth,the roles of moral principles become easy to see. And a failure to communicate Honorably can easily be traced through relationships to show it picking away at it block by block..... Learning Honorable communication, that is, the spreading of Truth, is a skill, a metaphysical skill of courage, and a necessary component of learning to recognize the Truth, and of living a life of spiritual Truth.
Peace
公孙全, I'd love to see your translated copy if it's available. I hope you're doing well and having an interesting time thinking about information, human societies, and truth.
this is a sad comment to see because it only took 2 months for the entire world to get locked down due to the virus
When Tom Scot says "it's up to us" my first thought is we are doomed.
(ಠ_ರ) Well that’s a grim perspective. That seems to be an esteem issue or maybe you’re surrounded by morons? If you think you’re smart enough to identify the worst maybe use your Boolean logic to identify the best, and associate with them instead.
@@databang I hope I am wrong but I don't see how we can change course.
databang thus leaving the sub-par majority to drive us off a cliff anyway? Finding ‘the best’ in your example is effectively just locking yourself in an intellectual ivory tower if you happen to be blessed/cursed with a brain capable of deeper thought. If the majority still lose the match for us, we all still go down...
@@TheAcdcninja Sounds like a problem to solve.
Solgato Blogopogo I spend my whole life wondering how to save the world. The only time’s I feel like I might have something even vaguely viable, I’m definitely into supervillain territory.
Tom : "Videos that are not true are starting to get recommended less and less..."
5-minute crafts : *sweats profusely*
2 hours later.... Finishes 5 minute project.
19:40 this made me pause the video, it hit home so hard, i get videos recommended about navy seal trainings, free solo climbers, the barkley marathon runners, elite powerlifters, and I've always felt like that's the real bar for success. I could never understand my mom being anti vax, while i could understand the healthy skepticism she had at the start. It is absolutely mindblowing that it applies for everything, no wonder that anxiety and insecurity are so prevelant
I know I have an odd name, so it sounds like I’m being sarcastic, but legitimately thank you for your input, and for not just falling in line with the views around you, and holding on to your own opinions; because there are very few people who do that nowadays. Keep your head up and remember that your opinion about you is all that matters.
In the spirit of this video, imma do a thing.
"Your opinion about you is all that matters"
That same sentance can be either...
A very encouraging thing to say to someone in a vulnerable place, or alternatively,
a horrible thing to say to someone in dire need of re-evaluating their life. Like a smoker, or homeopathic fanatic, or violently racist individual.
Its weird how the tools to fight depression can be used to affirm the zealots of the world. Human brains are strange (and i live in one!)
@@willb5278 You don't live in a brain, you *are* the brain, you're just controlling this body by giving tiny electric shocks to a system of wires that makes the muscles pull or relax.
A hot tip for trying to convince her of truth over vaccines, the falsehoods of some vaccines (homeopathic ones, and ones with decreasing efficacy in just weeks) and the utter pit of detritus that are those essential oil antivaxxer groups:
The more you attack someone, the more they will hate you. They will no longer listen to you, as you become their enemy.
@@willb5278 nice thing ya did there
hmm the algorithm decided i might wanted to watch this after watching some flat-earth debunking video's .Apparently the algorithm is correct
I never even realized that tom scott doesn't use any cuts for a lot of his videos. He just have spent so much time getting the monologue just right
I sub to this channel but Tom Scott is the difference between "I'll watch this later" and "I'll watch this now". Feeling a bit called out now
still, you know that tomscott usually produces quality content, so it may not necessarily be the man more than the content.
As he said natural human reaction. Love your work Tom.
I don't think I've ever watched anything on this channel before, but yeah, it came up at the side and I thought "Wait, Tom Scott did a lecture there? That looks interesting... but an hour long? I'll have to watch it later... but I'll just click it so that it goes into my history". Still here an hour later after watching the entire thing in one go.
Yep, this was totally a watch this later for me. I've now finally gotten around to watching this.
So you're telling me it would be less interesting to you if someone more knowleadgable and well suitedfor the topic, but also less recognizable was the presenter?
Yeah, same here.
Something I learnt at university was a theory called "the spiral of silence". Basically, people who hear thoughts like theirs spoken in public - whether in the media or just on the street - are more likely to also voice their opinion. If you don't hear voices/thoughts like yours, you assume ~nobody~ thinks the way you do, and so to avoid conflict you won't voice your opinion. Which is weird because it's usually (actually) the minority who are the loudest.
Great, another paradox making life worse 😂
@@crazydragy4233 not really a paradox. People are social creatures and we like to be accepted and respected by our peers. So if we think something that we think isn't a popular opinion, we will naturally keep it to ourselves. That's all the spiral of silence is, essentially, but on a larger scale.
@@doctorspockable I meant it in a sort of way that, it's natural behaviour that's hard to go against, but necessary to for systems to work and for everyone to live a better life
we talked about this in a sociology course, too, it's a fascinating phenomenon. It doesn't even have to be a 'loud' minority. People even start actively saying things they don't really agree with because they think it will make them more socially accepted, and it does, although solely because others belief the same.
like complaining about the rain. do you really feel a few drops are so terrible? or is it just that everyone always says so, and thus you join in
Fun fact: You did not search for this video.
I just searched for Tom Scott
This video has been at the top of my recommendations for months, insisting I watch. I finally gave in.
...I've seen better discussions on the subject.
Actually I did
I certainly didn't. And never would have. PRAISE THE ALGORITHM!!!!!
@@ianb3053 if there are better that you've found how about sharing the links with us.
An ad playing the moment Tom said “all of these platforms are advertising companies” was perfect.
I referenced this talk in my personal statement for my UCAS university application last year and now I'm studying at the University of York, of which Tom is an alumnus 😂
I will add tho, the way the algorithm pushes to extremes isnt ALWAYS bad, it drove me from watching the slow mo guys all the way to watching star talk and PBS spacetime and Nilered and tons of other more "hardcore" sciences. Even to engineering and even to something like this explaining some of the science and reasons why the algorithms works and dont work.
he said as much, "you choose which way you fall"
29:00
I've spent a good chunk of today selecting videos to watch based on the fact that Tom Scott was in them--whether it was Computerphile, his channel, or this video. I'm also less likely to watch a video if I think someone else will be talking during it.
...
I've never been called out this hard before.
And now Tom has planted the doubt in me: Do I like him because he's smart, charming, honest and has a British accent? Or because he's all of that stuff but he's also white?
I don't want the second question to be true.
@@georgelloydgonzalez wtf? That is not something you would doubt, you would know. He is merely bringing up his colour to make a point of the algorithm as a whole.
"It isn't about the game, it's about the person playing it."
So true. The best let's play I ever saw featured a guy who was playing the game. Over time, he made friends with a girl because of the game and she started joining in on the videos. By the end of the series, they were expecting their first child. I wasn't watching because I cared so much about the monsters they were farming, I was watching because I had fallen in love with the human story that had grown around it.
What game were they playing and who was the guy?
I don't remember his name, but they were playing Monster Rancher for the original play station, I believe.
@@jamalcolmson That was a game? I thought it was only a TV series.
@@danielsjohnson It was a videogame before it was a TV series.
@@jamalcolmson I think I may have wandered into a world where Pokemon came out on home consoles. :P
This talk was incredibly well done. Kept me engaged all the way through and leaves me with a feeling that I've learned something.
"Falsehood flies..." and Twitter's logo is a bird.
Hah. Good one XD
Though to be honest it should be an echo chamber
That's a good conspiracy theory you have there. Would you like to radicalize together by starting an anti-twitter hate group? You can join my discord server if you want.
Nice double entendre? (Twitter is not a bird)
_spits out soda_
BTW, if Twitter gets hacked, does that bird get flipped?
Walking up to a stranger you've heard of and saying "I love your work" is fine.
Walking up to a stranger and saying "I love you" is just creepy.
Just try and stop me.
What if a creeper creeps up on you and says "I love you" by exploding in your face ? Is that creepy or fine or both or neither or some quantum thing like : creepy fine refined creepers that never exploded in your face for always because of creepy love reasons that were never expressed all the time ? You tell me, because you are the truth spouter here. Thanks in advance. Have a nice day by the way. You're welcome to answer, stranger.
It very much depends on the situation
"You are the thing ...."
No. We are not a thing.
I have no poínt yet I have many ....
"Is it like the thing you speak ...."
I don't speak a thing.
Phony....
Grammophony....
Smart phony....
*Stereo Pony*
@@cibo889 Horse to C-3 *Beep Boop
~ AlphaGo Deepblue
I had quite the interesting "Moment" while watching this.
Shortly after the "it's a small line between liking the Creation and the Creators" (obviously paraphrasing here), I decided I wanted to share this video with someone I'm friends with.
And during the talk I always thought, that I am certainly one of the persons who likes the Creations and doesn't really care about the creators... but what did I write my friend?
"Damn I love this guy:" And while I still think that I am a person that values the Work>Artist, I didn't realise until that very moment how atached I grew to Tom Scott as a creator per se to the point of it almost being Creepy. I mean I watch his Channel and his creations, but I also recently got recommended an older Game show where a Young Tom Scott was a participant, and I watched it because of him, didn't watch another Episode before or since, just goes to show that for most people, an atachment to the Person seems almost inevitable, perhaps not equally as strong for everyone, but I think it's still there.
Only Connect? Watch the rest of it: it's brilliant.
Watching this video in 2022, I feel that the TH-cam algorithm governing the ''shorts'' video format is different than the one governing the regular feed. My interests are varied, I enjoyed military history, documentaries on weapons, battles, warships and aircrafts. I enjoy science videos, mostly physics and astronomy. I also watch a lot of video essays on cinema, music or social issues, and some comedian bits here and there to light it all. My feed when I get on TH-cam is mostly fine and in touch with my tastes. However, when I click on a ''short'' video, it gets ugly really quick. For some reason, after a couple of clips on some fun facts about a movie or an actor, a scene from Seinfeld and some cool shots of a plane taking off or something, I always end up getting videos of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, then some conspiracy right wing videos. Always. I thought it was funny at first, since when you look at the ''political'' channels I'm subscribed to, you'll find mostly leftish stuff, like PBS, TYT and others. But since I watch military stuff and some Bill Burr, the algorithm seems to assume that I'm a right-wing, weapon enthusiast, anti-feminism, pro-Trump dude. Those videos never come up in the normal feed, just in the shorts format. Very interesting.
It kinda is, and people have noted that mixing both on the same channel is detrimental to the statistics that OG algorithm looks at
I hate YT shorts
Tom, I love yo- uh... your work.
Somehow I didnt get a single ad in this hour long video, I guess I'm a black belt in skipping ads
Now transcend your black belt (and the whole ad-supported universe) and join us in ad-skipping Nirvana by using uBlock Origin.
L0j1k and join me in the ad skipping nirvana that doesn't starve youtubers, and buy Red
@@unicodefox Now join me in the transcendental fold of those who have no money to throw at a corporation and just deal with the ads
Join the spiritually ascended Vanced gang.
Vinicius Oliveira join the ethically ascended Premium gang.
Tom Scott without a red shirt is like matt parker with hair. :D
@SørenCast Z r/wooosh ... :-/
@SørenCast Z a youtuber and mathematician,
Nonono thats a Parkerdox XD
Tom Scott has been wearing a red shirt in every video for a lot longer than Matt Parker hasn't had hair.
he had hair just a few months ago
46:41 suddenly relevant this year. *ahem* twitter *ahem*
"I should do my homewo ... wait a minute an hour-long video about something I have no idea what there talking about but I'm gonna listen to it anyways since it sounds smart, sign me up!"
they're*
@@drewtlau they are*
@@user-zu6ts5fb6g that's numberwang!
54:05 "Or in the case of YT comments, any type of discussion whatsoever" That one flew right by the audience, didn't it?
What? Was there a joke I missed or something?
@@jorgemtzb9359 youtube bans everything mildly atagonizing in favor of advertisement
"They are essentially advertizing companies..." And comes an ad... Very well placed ad from TH-cam
tom scott probably timed that on purpose knowing him i got the same one too
"all these companies are essentially advertisement companies." *Ad starts playing*
I am a genius. Here is my algorithm for truth:
if (booleanValue == true) {
// do something when true
}
else {
// do something when false
}
Suboptimal. Your first line should be:
if (booleanValue) {
This will avoid an extra, unnecessary comparison operation.
@@angolin9352 if you're feeling frisky
(booleanValue)? doThingTrue() : doThingFalse();
@@SirLightfire I don't want to feel frisky anymore.
if(value) would suffice
Don't think it will be type safe so how about making it check for identical. booleanValue === true
15:00 - Now I'm wondering if someone at the RI tagged this spot in the video for an advert on purpose....
I love your work, but also really like Tom: the way you think seeps through, you thrive for honesty and to actually fight disinformation; which is something not a lot of people do nowadays.
3:42 But you've gone way past that within four years of the talk, with now over 6M subscribers.
31:02
You can hear Matt
Omg you generally can . We all love supportive friendship.
I think I can! wow
"As long as there's a human review"
I've seen substantial evidence at this point that there isn't an actual human review option, unless you're already a massive channel with private contacts for TH-cam employees. But I guess the topic here is algorithms, not TH-cam's mismanagement.
There probably *is* human review, mostly there so they can in good faith affirm there is. It's just that is not even remotely staffed proportionately to the task and the backlog is effectively infinite unless you have means to skip the queue
@@36424567254 I'm not sure I would call that implementation good faith.
@@LuciusC by "in good faith" i meant simply without lying.
@@36424567254 Well yeah, I just don't think that it's truthful unless you have a system that actually works and is used in all cases.
this is completely true, even the humans I've spoken to, don't really even care or try to understand the issues you can face on youtube. You know having spoken to youtube employees and being there, even though I don't upload anymore.
at 31:03 , is that Matt laughing? It sounds like Matt laughing..
that does sound like Matt
It's a Parker Reaction in any case.
Scott Watrous I thought it was Matt Grey...
Parker Square of a laugh, since it was only him laughing.
That is Matt Gray not Parker
When you said "Google, twitter, facebook...are essentially advertising companies", you were put on hold and I was taken to a car ad. The universe has a wicked sense of humor. The timing was impecable.
I think its related to their being a short pause at the end of the sentence, and youtube has an ad placement algorithm that tries to not cut people off mid sentence and loves to put ads at transitions in videos. (Which can be annoying, but sometimes it has perfect comedic timing)
The video I watched just before this one was ponytail tom making breakfast with a steam iron. The internet is weird.
From wearing a red T-shirt and sitting on a park bench to speaking at the Royal Institution, you have indeed come a long way.
@@HighestRank There is an algorithm.
37:10 "or ancient weapons"
Almost got my favorite crossover episode
This is why the idea of a singularity in AI is bunk. At least anytime soon. I've done a lot of work using FEA software to try to predict things, and these methods usually become garbage in garbage out at the slightest hint of complexity. Maybe it's just that my models are bad, but I don't find many people in engineering with the capacity to even challenge them. Studying ballistics and chain of events involving impact is highly unpredictable. AI can only be used to solve problems with well-defined scopes. The link to this conversation being that computers must be told peripheral truths in order to solve problems. The day we fully understand bird migration and embryonic development will be the tipping point for getting algorithms for truth; when we can finally apply real Darwinian pressures to a computer to develop general artificial intelligence. Until then, computer scientists are trying to develop a brain with no underlying biology, which I suspect does not even make sense. A phenotype without a genotype is nothing.
"If you would like 2 ads to appear less, skip them"
Video: Ad in 5 seconds...
40:00 Its disturbing that monetizing relationships is happening on such a grand scale. Seems a slippery slope to cults of personality, and authoritarianism.
This is why I'm happy to see Dune coming back into the public consciousness lately, as it's about time to have that warning restated.
I have what I believe to be a more important hypothetical:
Imagine you have a controversial opinion. Perhaps you believe a powerful person, group, organisation or government is responsible for something atrocious. You aren't completely convinced but you think there is good supporting evidence for this position. Now imagine tomorrow Google decides to prohibit or disincentivize content sharing this opinion.
Would this make your opinion stronger or weaker?
Now imagine the same situation but you hold the opposite position, you think there is good reason to doubt these claims but you have heard some reasonable sounding arguments from the other side. Now your opposition is silenced.
How can you become sure your opposition is wrong when you aren't allowed to hear their arguments?
I find it interesting, Mass censorship always seems to be in an effort to prevent people from learning there's an opposition whatsoever, rather than preventing the opposition from gaining traction, because almost anybody with half a brain knows that if you're not allowed to talk about something, it's almost guaranteed to be important and/or threatening.
@@LiftedStarfish So the question then becomes: is it a threat to the body imposing the censorship or to the mass.
Opinions should not be censored, as long as they don't advocate violence. Facts definitely should not be censored, either.
@@johntheos Then what about opinions that do advocate violence such as "overthrow the government"? Or conspiracies based on uncertainties or falsehoods? I think you are stating the blatantly obvious here but should we be censoring falsehoods and hate, by virtue of the contrapositive?
@@pzyckox What about things that are just wrong? An informative video about space and the solar system but the earth is just flat in it. How should children know what is correct when there are false facts all around.
The part about selling friendship is gold. starting 33:01 to the end.... I wish every parent(and their child) saw this, and understood it.
I love when you hear him talking about setting up something, letting the viewers forget, and using it in the conclusion, and you then read the video title, remember what he said in the beginning, and realize that he is circumspectly talking about how he set up his own talk, which you actually forgot, leading into the realization that he used that technique to set up the technique itself. That is some beautiful meta goodness
Just like a good comedian.
What a magician
Will the Earth survive such _meta goodness?_ Or will humans merely make a _meta effort?_
*If you really like him, you almost can't see he's very pro-globalism (pro-billionaires), very left wing, anti-Freedom. Too bad... No matter how decent a presenter (even though he blatantly copies Derren Brown's persona, which I like), I can't follow anyone who spreads ideas that are diametrically against what I believe in. Much, much rather watch Jordan Peterson, a thousand times.*
@@SeganHealthHacker How can someone be both pro-billionaire and very left-wing at the same time???