The Cancellation of Hank Green & Why Gen Z Hates Ai

Summary

The Colin and Samir Show - An Honest Discussion About How Creators Use AI

Episode Date: August 5, 2026

---

Overview

This episode sees Colin and Samir tackle the explosive debate over AI’s place in the creative process, sparked by backlash against legendary YouTuber Hank Green’s alleged use of ChatGPT in his videos. The hosts invite their team and collaborators, spanning Gen Z to Millennials, for a roundtable discussion delving into generational divides, audience trust, and possible principles for “ethical” AI use. It’s a candid, multi-perspective look at AI as a creative tool, the moral panic about originality, and what all this means for creators moving forward.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Hank Green Fallout: Why the Internet Exploded

• [00:00–04:28]
  • A minor phrase (“I appreciate the pushback”) in a recent Hank Green video sounded “AI-generated” to fans, causing massive backlash.
  • Assumption: Hank was reading from an AI-written script.
  • Hank clarifies: He denies the phrase was AI-written, but admits using ChatGPT and other LLMs for script research.
  • Community reaction: Outrage, accusations of “AI slop”, and betrayal of trust.

“What the hell, man? You are one of the only creators I trusted to be authentic, and you're out here feeding us AI slop passing it off as your own words.” — YouTube comment read by Samir [05:14]

2. Parsing AI Use: Research, Scripting, and Authenticity

• [06:22–07:24]
  • Hank used AI to aggregate research, not write scripts.
  • Many fans lack clarity on what counts as “AI”—is aggregating sources fundamentally different from letting it generate your full script?
  • Gen Z panelists note: the old trust in “internet teachers” like Hank makes AI involvement feel more like a betrayal.

“There's not a clear distinction in the discourse on what constitutes AI… Gen Z views using it for research as different than using it to generate content.” — Sid [07:24–08:54]

3. Generational Divides on Tech & Trust

• [13:10–18:15]
  • Colin and Samir (age 37) grew up seeing early tech as opportunity, not threat. Gen Z grew up amid tech-fueled anxiety, corporate distrust, and job insecurity.
  • For older creators, AI is a natural extension of tech evolution; for younger ones, it threatens job prospects, honesty, and control.

“I think people in your age demographic, though, have a lot of trust. Our generation does not. We don't trust the government. We don't trust… our bosses.” — Keisha [14:44]

4. Moral Panic: Is Using AI ‘Cheating’ or Just Efficient?

• [19:00–24:36]
  • Some see AI in content as “outsourcing thought” (morally wrong, akin to steroids in bodybuilding).
  • Others argue tools like AI are no different than earlier productivity tools—moral questions arise when replaceable creative work or outright plagiarism happens.
  • Audience “noticing” the AI becomes the functional line for acceptability.

“An original thought is a fascinating thing here. That is actually what this is about.” — Samir [24:02]

5. Creator Policies and Audience Disclosure

• [25:08–26:33]
  • Hank’s company, Complexly, has a longstanding AI policy—no AI-generated scripts or images, only closed-loop, consensual uses.
  • Still, the backlash continued after full transparency.

“You want honesty from your creator. You got it… But the continued backlash against Hank after he's come through and explained his side of things is completely uncalled for.” — Sid [25:51]

6. Defining ‘The Line’ for AI Use

• [26:34–33:22]
  • Colin suggests: “The line is wherever the audience notices.”
  • The team discusses real-world scenarios: AI-thumbnails, script outlines, language dubbing — where is each on the “red-yellow-green” spectrum? Robust debate, no universal answer.

“If people don't notice, then it's fine… If someone uses AI to write my script and no one knows, then that's within your parameter.” — Connor [26:55]

7. Originality, Reference, and Artistic ‘Respect’

• [43:54–48:15]
  • The importance of referencing vs. direct copying emerges as a core principle, both for AI and for human-created content.
  • AI’s unique acceleration of “unearned” originality and data set use is part of the discomfort.

“It's the biggest pieces, data sets that scrape the Internet, that take your work, take his work, my work, everyone's images, likeness, and creative thoughts, and they repurpose and repackage.” — Sid [48:35]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “This feels like the Liver King steroid thing. You didn’t earn those abs, he didn’t earn that thought.” — Samir, drawing an analogy between AI-authored ideas & steroids, [23:37]
• “Don't trade your excitement to create for efficiency.” — Samir, closing reflection, [50:34]
• “Be honest. That's what matters.” — Sid, on disclosure and audience trust, [37:57]
• “Just make sure you protect your honest excitement for the work and for what you deliver.” — Colin, summing up advice to creators, [49:36]

---

Key Timestamps & Segments

• 00:00–05:00: Hank Green, ChatGPT, and the spark of internet outrage
• 06:22–08:54: Gen Z perspective: why AI feels like betrayal
• 13:10–18:15: Age, technology, and shifting attitudes to trust
• 24:02–24:36: The question of original thought and earned ideas
• 25:08–26:33: Complexly’s AI policy and failed attempts at transparency
• 26:34–33:22: Scenarios: what’s “red, yellow, green” AI use?
• 34:43–36:17: Creators as businesses, “checked box” content, and efficiency vs. artistry
• 43:54–48:15: Artistic inspiration vs. copying—how AI blurs the line
• 49:36–51:23: Final principles and big-picture takeaways

---

Emerging Principles for Creators Using AI

The panel attempts to distill ethical AI use into three broad principles:

1. Be Honest

   • Disclose meaningful AI involvement.
   • Don’t “fake it;” your audience values authenticity and personal excitement.

2. Maintain the Human Element

   • The work should still “feel human” and reflect your voice, judgment, and taste—even if aided by AI.

3. Don’t Copy Directly

   • Use references and inspiration (as in all art), but don’t let AI work or your own workflow cross into direct, lazy imitation—whether from AI or other creators.

“If you can make it yourself, make it yourself. If you’re using AI for a skill you can’t do, that’s different. The reason there’s no nuanced take is because nobody is thinking about respect, not morality.” — Samir [30:46]

---

Conclusion & Invitation to the Audience

Colin and Samir close by emphasizing that “it depends”—nuance is the name of the game. They call for a wider conversation about AI norms in the creator economy, urging grace, thoughtfulness, and evolving standards shaped by both creators and audiences.

“Give everyone some grace. It's all new. We’re figuring it all out together. Take this as an opportunity to open the discussion and hear everyone's perspective.” — Samir [51:35]

---

Let this spark your own reflection: Where should the line be for AI in creative work, and how should creators keep their process honest and exciting?

Transcript

[A]

The creative community is finally addressing AI usage in the creative process. And it's all because of four words Hank Green said in a recent video. And I appreciate the pushback.

[B]

These four words sparked outrage amongst Hank's community as well as just across the entire Internet, and led to Hank pausing uploads on all of his channels.

[A]

Now, this conversation around AI usage in the creative process is one that we've had quite a bit in our office with our team. But that conversation has picked up a lot over the past week since this moment with Hank Green. So we wanted to bring a bunch of different voices into the room for this episode where we talk about the line, how should creators be using AI in their process? Let's get into it. All right, so this Hank Green situation has completely blown up.

[B]

I'm actually shocked at how many publications have written about it. It's crazy.

[A]

I mean, we're about a week after the video was posted and the Verge just posted an article about it 15 minutes ago. It continues to be a topic of discussion. So let's explain what happened here.

[B]

Okay. Briefly, if you don't know Hank Green and his story, just quickly. He and his brother John, they are authors, writers, academics, and they have been on YouTube for 20 years. They are legends. They have a channel called Vlogbrothers where they send videos back and forth to each other. Now, off the back of that success, they've started a company called Complexly, which has Crash Course scishow. It's a series of educational videos which are shown in high schools throughout the country. They are known largely as educators, like the Internet's teacher, basically. Now, the show where all of this started is called Ask Hank Anything on the complexly YouTube channel where YouTubers come in and they ask Hank questions.

[A]

We've been asked to be on the show twice.

[B]

I don't. Yeah, we. It didn't work out or what? Was it my fault?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Okay. Sorry, Hank. So in this episode, a creator named Soupy Time is asking Hank questions. It's a long form podcast. It's very educational. And they start getting into the meaning of words, how words get their. Their names. It throws to a segment where Hank is teaching you something. He's explaining how two words got their names. And this is the clip that sparked everything.

[A]

There's a thing in there that matters, and that's very cool. A better way to say it, and I appreciate the pushback, is a word is a human invention. And human inventions are made by bodies and brains working together with the systems that they have, including so the moment in question is him saying, I appreciate the pushback.

[B]

A better way to say it. And I appreciate the pushback.

[A]

Yeah. So now important context is like prior, they are debating and she is pushing back on him. But the read of what happened there is that Hank was reading a ChatGPT created script. Because I appreciate the pushback sounded unnatural and sounded like something that was written

[B]

by AI, it would be easy to assume that Hank was having a conversation with ChatGPT, asked for a simpler version of this explanation. Mm. And ChatGPT responded saying, another way to say it. I appreciate the pushback. And then gave the simpler explanation.

[A]

So that's the assumption. And now this clip goes viral. His community starts to really feel upset that they feel like Hank's using AI in something, that he's reading to them. And then Hank puts out a tweet where he denies that that specific line was written by AI, saying it was an ad lib during the filming, but acknowledges that that he's made videos under heavy pressure because he's making a high volume of videos and has used ChatGPT for research on the script. He then deleted that tweet and then posted a much longer note on his subreddit. This thing is like. This is like a big page. Almost feels like somewhat of an apology and an admission.

[B]

It is very much a lot of introspection from Hank about how far his use of LLMs have. Has gone. He does apologize for how it's potentially gotten in between him and his audience. And he says that he's going to be taking a step back. He's going to be making less videos on Hank's channel, a couple of his other channels, until he starts to understand fully his process for making videos.

[A]

Now, there's a line in there that I think everyone, from what I've seen all over YouTube and streamers have reacted to this. Like, everybody is quoting this one line where he talks about. About the dopamine he's getting from interacting with LLMs. And that starts to play into this world of like, him kind of admitting a version of an addiction that people are understanding now. This thing, Hank Green using AI in any capacity has created so much anger. I screenshotted a comment from, like, the comments on all of his videos on YouTube now are just people angry at Hank, Right? So, like, this is a comment from this morning on his last YouTube video that has nothing to do with this. What the hell, man? You are one of the only creators I trusted to be authentic, and you're out here feeding us AI slop passing it off as your own words. If you were under a time crunch, you could have hired someone to help you with your scripts or to do your research or to bounce ideas off this. There's no excuse for using Gen AI in any capacity. It's not inevitable. It's not the future. It's not a tool. It's just slop for people who can't think for themselves. And it majorly sucks that I can't trust you to think for yourself anymore.

[B]

That feels really far. Yeah. When I watch Hank, even that clip, I do not feel like it is anything different from the Hank Green that I know and love now, maybe behind closed doors. Even if he is using ChatGPT as he says to develop that video, to me, it feels it's the same great Hank Green that I know and love. So yeah, I think I have differing views on AI. But like it does not knowing that he uses it does not tarnish my opinion.

[A]

No.

[B]

Of it.

[A]

Yeah, this, this reaction has surprised me. I mean I'm aware of the general sentiment towards AI and I want to get into this now. And we have other voices in the room. We're joined by our story producer, Connor. We're also joined by writer from the published press, Sid Cohen, as well as Kish, who's new to the team as a creative strategist. The you two over there, what is your guys state your age?

[C]

I am 23.

[A]

You're 20. Keisha's 23.

[D]

I'm 26 and no longer the youngest person in the room anymore.

[A]

So I think it's interesting to talk. And Connor, your age?

[E]

30.

[A]

30. So it's interesting because Colin and I are both 37. So to talk about our different relationships with this subject matter is I think really interesting. There is an anger towards generative AI that is actually has been hard for me to understand from Gen Z. Sid, can you explain like the comment I just read, where is this anger coming from?

[D]

Something important that we have not touched on yet is his clarification that he. That Hank was using AI as an aggregator for research papers that he then read. So it was not that he used it to write his script. He used it as a tool to get to research that he might not have gotten to otherwise through like Google Scholar or going to the library. This was a tool used to get to a product that he then read himself and he came out and said that. So I think that clarification is important for the context of my opinion and how I feel about the backlash that I've been Seeing but from a Gen Z perspective, I think why they're mad. Like I grew up watching Hank. He got me through AP Psychology like I was 15, using his videos as a tool when AI didn't even exist yet. So now to see people upset, I understand, I understand the outrage and I think it's because there's not a clear distinction in the discourse on what constitutes AI. I think the definition of AI is so nebulous. Like every single platform has an AI tool and the difference between gen for writing a script and generating a video is completely different than using it as a way to aggregate data which you can then use to do your own research. But people are mad because their trust has been quote unquote betrayed.

[A]

But go deeper on like what does AI represent?

[C]

I think there's twofold, right? There's Hank Green and then there's AI. Hank Green is the educator. He's this guy who's often in the position of authority that people look to for their opinions. A lot of people, if we're being honest with, look to Hank to assign them opinion on many topics and now they're being told that the opinion that was being assigned to them on so many topics came from AI. And then there's how Gen Z views AI. Think Gen Z right now if you're 22, you just went to college, you spent all this money and now you're probably unemployed, you probably are unemployed or you can't move out of your parents house and you're angry and then you go online and they're like AI has this big market, stock market all time high. AI is bringing in jobs or is AI going to take your job? And then it's going back and forth and then you're like Hank Green, this guy, the Internet's uncle, is now using AI when he could clearly afford a researcher. Right. Like if we're gonna what's your expectation

[A]

on what the researcher would do? Yeah. Do you know what I'm saying? Like I, I, I, and I'm pushing back here because I'm like even in the premise of using it for research, there's a really big gap between I used ChatGPT or some LLM to organize my thoughts and provide me with information faster than I would have got if I walked to a library and I can't trust you anymore. That to me is a massive gap that I'm trying to understand deeper on. Like get me from I used AI to research this to I can't trust you with anything you say.

[D]

To Kesha's point, I think the idea here is that thought is being outsourced. And I see that for myself. Like, I'm a writer for your newsletter, for our newsletter. And I don't use AI LLMs in my process because I feel that it is my job to succinctly synthesize the ideas that are floating around in the creator economy and provide a point of view to our readers. So I don't want any part of that process outsourced. Do I think that by him using a tool to find a source that he might not have been able to find elsewhere is necessarily outsourcing thought? I don't think so. But I also understand why someone would think that an inclusion of an LLM at any point in the process could be outsourcing your work to a machine instead of a human. And I think that's where people are getting mad. But do I think that all the hate is warranted? Absolutely not. We have, we ran a poll in the published press asking people when it's okay to. When creators should disclose that they've used AI in their process. And Connor has the full quote, but could you read the one about virtue signaling?

[E]

Yeah. Yeah. So part of the poll, I think the. The options were to answer when. When should creators disclose AI in their content workflow? Always in audience facing use cases, which would be like images, video, script writing never. Or write an option. And this person had voted only in audience facing use cases. And the response was anti AI is the newest virtue signal. And I say this as someone who supports being anti AI. The whole problem is an ethical mess on all sides.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So that's someone who's taking the POV there. That the environmental concerns, the job loss, the data centers in small towns. Yes. It's a judge of your character, basically, that it's.

[E]

The thing itself is immoral because of how it exists, not the use of it.

[A]

So I think it's important, like, the reason to have this discussion and have this discussion around creators is because, like, there's a necessity here for some levels of nuance in this conversation. There's a lot of black and white. There's a lot of Hank used in LLM at some point in his process. Hank now not valid to me. Like, that is a incredible version of like black and white that I'm seeing

[D]

and super interesting because I don't personally believe that this situation would happen to every creator. I don't think it would happen to you guys.

[A]

Yeah, I think we've been outward facing about our relationship to technology, but I have also Thought a lot about this and thought about our difference in ages. So Colin And I, being 37, when we came out of college, what was happening was our peers were creating apps in Silicon Valley and adopting technology in a way that was changing their lives. And they were rock stars to us. This may be hard for you to believe. Mark Zuckerberg was a rock star to

[B]

us, and their apps were changing our lives. We were meeting people at school.

[A]

We were dating. We were the guys who made Tinder, the guys who made Instagram, the guys. There was a movement, Evan Spiegel, who made Snapchat, of young people utilizing technology to change the world. And that was extraordinarily exciting. When we were 21, I still have that. Like, the thing of our generation is being an early adopter of technology can unlock and change your world and change the. The world. So my relationship with technology is when a new technology comes my way, I want to be an early adopter of it and I want to learn as much of it as possible, because I witnessed that growing up. Now, I'm not saying I'm not assigning good or bad to that. I'm just assigning my own experience. And I would assume people in my age demographic and older feel the same way about technology.

[C]

I think people in your age demographic, though, have a lot of trust. Our generation does not. We don't trust the government. We don't trust our. We don't trust. I was about to say, we don't trust our bosses, but we do not trust these guys. That's right here. And while I appreciate the pushback, I think. I think what is fair to say, though, is that Hank did not just say he researched. This man went on and said, I am addicted to ll.

[A]

So that part two of this discussion.

[C]

Yeah. And it's not like our guy, he just like, like, yeah, I wanted to save money on a researcher. It's like, for one, if you know you're operating at scale you can't keep up with, then bring on staff or figure out some process. Also, like I was saying, it's like, yeah, you probably could say it's invalid to say that this is a definition of his character. To say you are addicted to AI is a definition of character.

[A]

To clarify, he didn't say addictive. We're reading addicted, right? He, he, he. He didn't say addicted. He said, yeah. Can you say it?

[E]

Yeah, he said, but mostly I need to come to terms with the fact that the level of dopamine I've been getting from interacting with LLMs with doing more and more and more and more is not healthy for me or good for the world.

[C]

Okay, yeah, that's a bit different.

[A]

Yeah. See, I think there's all. There's often a jump in, in the Internet. Right. Because of course, like people, people just glance at things and so they immediately glance at that and go, Hank Green's addicted to AI. He's. He uses AI in everything. He doesn't say a word. That's not AI. Like, there's a jump that I think is, is dramatic and. Yeah, go ahead.

[D]

I was just going to say, kind of going back to your point on like the generational gap with technology, I think that the reason why it was so exciting for you guys is because the technology at the time felt really benign. Like it didn't feel life threatening. There were not algorithms yet. It was like, I'm gonna post this picture and I'm gonna see everything in chronological order. And it feels like a way relatively.

[A]

I mean, YouTube was an algorithm and it unlocked the world for us.

[B]

I do think maybe to Sid's point, like, the scope of these tech companies

[A]

has changed, has changed dramatically in what Facebook was when. What Facebook was when we were 18 to what meta is today is dramatic. Like, yeah, it was a cool place to post photos with your friends and to like meet people from other high schools at the time.

[B]

And to your point, like, Mark Zuckerberg was a rock star and I think your generation probably grew up seeing him testifying in front of Congress. Yeah, it's like very different.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

I grew up with Mark Zuckerberg. Lizard memes. Yeah.

[A]

Right.

[D]

And, yeah, but I think, and I think now, like, when I view a tech company, when people in my generation view a tech company, it is all I'm seeing is people can't turn on the water in their homes because it's flammable, because there's a data center being built next door. People are having their images used without their consent. They are. Well, I guess to your point, because we've had a conversation about this, I'm sure they signed the terms of conditions like the rest of us. But not wanting that to be the outcome. I think that these tech companies, maybe it's just me getting older, but it's become more of a sinister feeling that I get when I'm interacting with them. And that's fueled my mistrust or distrust towards AI, LLMs, social media platforms, even though I do continue to use them. And by them I mean the social media platforms.

[A]

Yeah, there's an alignment with like, from, from What I'm hearing, correct me if I'm wrong, but this situation, or any creator who's like, outwardly using AI in their process, there's an alignment with the dark side. Because your assumption is this is the dark side, right?

[E]

Yeah, there's a. There's a really interesting comment from the survey, and this is somebody that said creator should always be upfront about AI use. And because there are ethical and moral issues baked into creation, training, and use of all AI models, given AI's reliance on intellectual property theft and localized negative environmental effects of the data centers, it's only fair that creators are honest about how much AI is present. So I can make my decision on what level of engagement I have with your content.

[D]

100%.

[A]

Let's. Let's play out the world where Hank writes a bunch of thoughts and ask his. Asks an LLM to organize those thoughts for him. Yeah, where. Where does that lie?

[C]

I mean, that. That is like on the line of, like, it'd probably be in the yellow territory, but you're probably like, you're good. But I mean, if this dude is using it so much that it has baked into his words, or he used to say, I appreciate the pushback. I mean, that's a phrase that I don't people ever say like, what do you.

[A]

Are we being for real right now that somebody like, you can't say, I appreciate the pushback, bro.

[C]

Like, AI uses that phrase every single time.

[E]

I think this really goes back to something we've been talking about a lot about AI at this point is way more of a feeling than like a definitive thing where it's like, even if we're making an argument and if you verbally say like, it's not this, it's that it's like so AI focused now that despite being like an incredibly common way to make an argument, it's now just a signal that you used AI even if you didn't. That can just be like, in your

[B]

vernacular, it's like, you can't use an EM dash anymore.

[E]

Totally.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah, I'm pretty bad.

[D]

I'm going to use those EM dashes. It's. It's a good grammar.

[B]

I think this is interesting point that, like, okay, let's. Let's live in a world where. And Hank did not do this, but let's live in a world where he scripted that video completely. But that line about pushback wasn't included and no one noticed. That's happening, in my opinion, with a lot of creators at scale.

[A]

Not in Europe. I wouldn't say, in our opinion, even, like we've seen in what we know. Yeah, we know. Right.

[D]

Most creators use AI in their work in some way. In another, we. Like I just said, I don't use LLMs in my process. I do use a transcription service because I'm not going to sit there, listen to the.

[A]

You're going to colonize me for an hour.

[D]

I would never listen to you guys.

[B]

I think what's interesting is, like, if the use case is good enough or if the meme is funny enough.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

No one gives a shit.

[A]

Yes. We've been talking about this all week, which is why we wanted to bring this here. But, like, you know, I wrote down and just tell me if this is part of it.

[E]

Right.

[A]

And I can understand this, that, like, I represents this threat to work in a way. Right. It definitely represents a threat to work for young people.

[E]

Yep.

[A]

And then a threat to honesty, which I find to be a really interesting one. That, like, the threat of honesty. And the reason I wrote that down was because the promise of the creator economy is that you are experiencing an honest version of someone.

[B]

Right.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Is that. And like with Hank, when you're watching him, at least for me, and this to me, does not take away that reality of Hank Green. To me, as a friend, as a creator, as a contemporary, like Hank, I think, is one of the greatest thinkers, writers, and articulators on YouTube and of our generation. And I think what's happening is that to some people, what I just said has been discredited because there's a lack of honesty to what he did, that it's not thoughts out of his brain, it's thoughts out of. In collaboration with something else.

[B]

One thing I do want to share that is relevant is an article from the New York Times. It's titled, if you're over 40, you're ready to use AI, written by a designer and a professor named Debbie Millman. Students seem unable to resist the ease that large language models provide them to wrestle with and craft their ideas, and are incapable of tolerating the discomfort of searching for language when language can be produced for them. They also seem unwilling to stay inside difficulty long enough for the difficulty to teach them something. There's something drug like about using AI not because it produces pleasure, but because it removes a particular kind of pain. And then she has this great quote. Before a person asks a machine to write for them, they should know what it feels like to write from the depths of their own uncertainty and identity. Before a person lets a machine imitate their voice. They should have endured the long, uneven, often humiliating process of acquiring one.

[A]

I love that. Yeah, I absolutely love that.

[B]

And I think that's why Hank, to me, is fine. But I understand where younger people have not had the opportunity potentially to fully develop their own thoughts and world without the ease of a thought being developed for them.

[A]

I'm going to make a relationship to something that you may think is crazy really quickly. Liver King, remember that guy?

[B]

You're right. I do think that's crazy.

[A]

You remember, like, everyone saw his abs.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And his abs were like, whoa. He does this method and that's how he gets them. And then it came out he was taking steroids.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I. To me, that feels like a very equivalent conversation that like you're like, oh, yeah, like you didn't earn that earnings. An original thought is a fascinating thing here. That is actually what this is about.

[B]

Right. Any original thought needs to have been earned.

[A]

I agree with that and I 100% am in on. Maybe we have this relationship because we've been creators for 37 years without this technology. I shot with VHS cameras. I write in a journal. I know how to do the other thing.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I've gone through the pain that is that other thing. So I now, when I see something, I can immediately assign good, bad to it because I know if it actually includes the artistic process or not.

[D]

The thing that gives me like that made me disappointed about the backlash to Hank's situation was that people wanted honesty from him and then he gave it to them. He said very candidly, this is what I'm doing. I'm so sorry if this is not what you wanted from me. I'm sorry if I let you down. This is how I use it in my process. He outlined Complexly's very clear AI policy that has been in place for over three years. This is not something that was made yesterday. I read through it. They never use it to generate.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Anything like their scripts. They never use it to generate video or images from non consensual LLMs, meaning any like Public One, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini. They use it on like a closed loop with consensual images. And the backlash still persisted. And that makes me really disappointed because you want honesty from your creator. You got it. And I think you could choose at that point to engage or not engage with their content if that policy is up to your standards. But I think the continued backlash against Hank after he's come through and explained his side of things is completely uncalled for.

[E]

There's. There's been like a complete unwillingness to engage in the nuance of this.

[D]

Exactly.

[A]

I think that it opens us up to an opportunity. Like reading Complexly's AI policy I actually thought was really interesting. It's very simple. It's one page. We'll link it so you guys can read or just look it up. Complexly AI policy. It's basically a Google Doc that maps out like four rules. And I think what would be a really healthy discussion, and we'll start it here, but I think it should take place in the comments. It should take place as a discourse amongst creators, is what is our YouTube creator or creator AI policy? And we should collectively create it. Like, what. What are the principles in which we will be using or not using AI

[B]

moving forward, I'll throw out a line.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

The line is wherever the audience notices.

[A]

Did you write that?

[B]

Yeah. You think I like using LM to write that?

[A]

I can't. I didn't say anything. You said, how are we ranking it?

[C]

Are we gonna go like green, yellow, red?

[A]

I mean, that's an interesting one right there. The line. Say it again.

[B]

The line is wherever the audience notices.

[E]

No, I think that's. I think that's the correct functional take. Because we can talk about, like, theoretical, whether it's fine or not, but if people don't notice, then it's fine. Like, it's effectively fine. Because that's like what we know of all of the YouTubers.

[D]

Does that mean if I use it to write my script and no one knows, then that's within your parameter that you just set?

[A]

That's what he's saying. Yeah.

[E]

Yeah.

[D]

Yellow, yellow. Leaning red on that. For me, it's about, are you using AI for something that someone on your team could be doing?

[A]

So the morality is around human resource.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Let's say I. I have like, audio that's messed up and I want to use Adobe podcast to fix it. I don't know how to fix that. Audio. This AI can fix the audio. I've now outsourced a skill to a machine.

[D]

I guess I meant in like the generative AI. Is that generative AI Generative?

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

I don't know.

[C]

Yeah, I think so. That's green. Right. Because let's say you're a smaller creator, you don't know how to edit. You don't. You have a crappy mic. Like, you can't afford a $400 mic. It makes it sound better. Right. Versus a thumbnail. Let's say you have a thumbnail and there's like a really Neat detail in it. Like a really artistic detail. And if you're a scroller, you'd be like, wow, like, somebody put that there. Like, I wonder what that represents in this art.

[E]

I have a follow up there because you started that with saying you're a small creator. And that affordability aspect is interesting. Why does that. Does it change if you're a bigger creator or like, let's say a YouTuber dubbing videos versus a large Netflix production, using it to. To dub in a foreign language? Where's the line there?

[C]

I think there's a question of effort for one. And there's also like, budget is part of it. But it's like if you're Mr. Beast and you have like dozens of thumbnails that you need to be like, you need made. Right. He makes like 100 per video. Like, generally an AI thumbnail is not as good as a man made thumbnail. It's generally like 85%. You can put that effort to get to that next level. And also, like, when there's a human making it, I think there's more odds of you making something new and you. Someone's playing.

[A]

We're back to like, the original frame that you put forward is morality. Yeah. I'm going to paint one more picture here is of a real life scenario. For a long period of time, we dubbed our videos in partnership with eleven Labs, which is an AI voice company. We dubbed them into multiple languages. We wanted to do that with human actors the way that Beast did it. We got a quote for one of our videos because it was almost two hours long for $230,000 to dub it into 10 languages, which is a lot of money. Those are real human voice actors. The choice we made was to use 11 labs to dub it into all of those languages through AI voice.

[C]

Yeah. I mean, how much was 11 labs?

[A]

I mean, nominal compared. I don't remember the price, but in the hundreds of dollars.

[C]

I mean. Yeah, I think the AI dubbing, like, that's bread, right? That is bread. Right. But the thing is, it's like, wait,

[B]

wait, that's red bread.

[C]

Bread, Bread. Like it's bread. Like it's expensive. Like it's a lot of money.

[A]

Oh, it's bre head. Wow.

[E]

Okay.

[A]

Got it. Yeah, that I see. Yeah.

[C]

Yeah. So I think for one, right. If you go down the spectrum, it's gonna sound. Sound like we're coping really hard at a certain point. Like, that's just how it is. Right. I've used AI too. Right. It's how we all Function. I think it's just like when it's used for something that you know the person could have made themselves. It's like you are a child, just. You are lazy, you are a loser. Just make it yourself if you can make it yourself. It's like there isn't. The reason there's no nuance take is

[A]

because nobody is thinking about respect, not morality. Right. Like, that's artistic respect, which I agree with, but morality is a different thing.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

And I'm. Again, I'm pushing to push the conversation forward not to.

[D]

And I. I appreciate the push because I can't transcribe every audio file that I do.

[A]

I don't trust you anymore.

[D]

You don't?

[A]

Why? You just said, I appreciate that.

[B]

Where'd you get that line?

[A]

I don't trust you at all. Yeah, that's crazy.

[D]

You said, I'm pushing back and I appreciate.

[B]

Oh, my God.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

It's literally. Holy shit.

[A]

Okay, so I know, Connor, you have some scenarios.

[E]

Yeah, so I have some scenarios. I think what would be super helpful is we just go through. Talk about whether or not we think a specific scenario is okay. And hopefully by the end, we can come up with, like, three principles that we agree on for. I don't know if ethical is the right word, but, like, how creators can go about using AI in a way that they feel good about it. Creator makes a generated thumbnail background and person, but they use their own face and manually Photoshop it back on. Green, red or yellow?

[D]

Red.

[C]

Yellow.

[B]

I'm full green here.

[A]

Yeah. I think for me, I mean, I know this is happening at scale with a lot of people and creators I respect, and I think there's still a level of, I don't know. They're doing it, they're concepting it. I'm watching them do it.

[B]

I think as long as the image. And this is just more of a preference thing. As long as the thumbnail and the image accurately represents what's inside the video.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I have no problem.

[A]

I think generally we're moving in a direction where even me as an audience member, I prefer, like, a photo. We've been talking about that a lot more as, like, I want a lower Phi thumbnail, because everyone can do that. It now looks homogeneous. Like, you don't.

[B]

I don't want to have to ask the question. When I see a thumbnail, is that the real environment?

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

So that, to me, again, is like, the line is wherever the audience notices.

[E]

Right.

[B]

If I don't notice and I click and the video backs it up. I have no problem.

[C]

But with thumbnails, if you think about it though, they have been looking fake for a while.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

People have been editing them to look fake, which is just, it's interesting. It's interesting how people are torn on it.

[B]

Also, like, both of us have the utmost respect for thumbnail designers.

[A]

I mean we, we employ, we pay a lot of money for thumbnail design.

[B]

And to be clear, we pay them partly in large part for their strategy.

[E]

Yep.

[B]

Knowing also that they are using AI tools to make thumbnails for us better than we could use those tools.

[E]

What if someone uses AI to create an outline for a video that they go and fill out or script themselves?

[D]

Red,

[A]

yellow, I'm fully green here. Like I think getting an outline, I mean, this is something I do or I ask, like, you know, how would you approach this? What are the holes in my story? Like, I, that is something I do.

[D]

That was my job before I got here is I was a researcher, outliner, scripter for commentary YouTube channels. And it was a very like sparse job. Like not a lot of people had that job. But I was, this was like pre chat GPT and I was like really grateful because that's, that's how I ended up here in this room.

[A]

Right.

[D]

And I think that is something that someone could do for. I was not being paid a lot for that. Very cheap and didn't take me very long.

[A]

Yeah, but isn't it, isn't it just like though. But if that's bad, it's bad. Like if you go on LinkedIn right now, like 75% of the content is written by an LLM and it's bad

[D]

and 70% are yours.

[A]

It's actually why I post so little, because I'm so. I look at that environment and I'm like, I have to work on an original thought and take to add to this ecosystem. And like so many people are just cranking posts out there, but they're bad. Like they're not fun to read.

[B]

Those people don't have their own personal taste. LLM aside or not. Like they're right or they don't have a taste that aligns with yours. I don't have a.

[A]

Then it makes it uninteresting to read.

[E]

So let's try and bring this all together and, and Brainstor, are there like three clear principles or rules that we can follow as we're thinking about how we use AI or how other creators can use AI in their process?

[A]

Let's start with like ideation.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Brainstorming. Let's Say, you know, I'm trying to make a video about Hank Green. This video. I need a hundred title options for, for this, this episode.

[C]

Yeah. So the way I've used it in my like for most strategy things, it can help you get the ball rolling. It very. If you ask it to generate 500 titles, you will probably get one that is half usable, but it's a good way to give you ideas. So it's like. I need a good adjective here.

[A]

Ideation.

[E]

Okay, what can we boil that down into? Like, what, what is that?

[A]

Yeah, what does that represent?

[E]

What's the principle?

[A]

Is it like support AI as supporting character? Is. Okay.

[B]

I think one of the issues here is that like, for a lot of us that grew up on YouTube, like the beauty of it is an individual out of their bedroom who cares so deeply about something and the only resource they have is themselves and a camera and their own thoughts and they will do whatever it takes to get it out into the world. And now that is just changing drastically. Like there is something now that has

[A]

been changing through the lens. I know the, the, the, the mainstream vacation of, of YouTube, the commodification totally.

[B]

That's happening with, with AI or not. Like the pure presence of a Mr. Beast is, is a sign of how things have changed since.

[A]

Look at us, we were two guys who made videos in your car. We now have a team, we employ a bunch of people. We are continuously hiring more people that like we run a business now. And I think that is also probably some of the emotional feeling towards YouTube is the change from individual to media company that we're watching at the same time. Because that encourages a higher level of efficiency which then in turn encourages a productization of something and efficiency.

[B]

Getting back to the Hank Green situation is a lot of the problem. I think, yes, for a lot of his audience that all of the sudden the methods that he used to create the video make the video feel like a checked box on a checklist.

[A]

Right.

[B]

That he's checking off instead of a deep rooted personal desire to share.

[A]

So that, that's. That to me is number one principle, if we boil it down is like honesty for me is what is breaking through and what's interesting on YouTube in culture across the board, like be honest. And being honest can be like being honest about your use, but being honest also about like making something you want to make. And I think that's like. Because if it's something I really want to make and I get help from people in this room, plus organize those thoughts through an LLM and then deliver it through my honest lens to me. If I'm on the receiving end of that, I'm okay with it. I'm okay if you're delivering me something that you honestly want to make.

[D]

I completely agree. I think disclosure as much as you can, like, without giving away your business secrets or whatever, but I think disclosing to your audience how much AI you're using and when, whenever possible is really important because then your audience can decide, do I want to engage with this person based on what I'm hearing. I don't think that would change your viewership at all. And you are very honest about how you use AI.

[A]

I would almost feel bizarre, though, if a creator I'm watching is like, by the way, I used a color grading software that used AI to tell me how to color grade this. Like, I would be like, I think it's just norms. Like, you know, watch the video.

[D]

You know, when Renegade went on TikTok and everyone, like, did not credit the original. I think the dc, like, the dance creds thing that emerged as a norm on TikTok, I could see something similar happening. Like, okay, like LLM creds. Or like, where, like, what tools did I use in this video? I could see something similar to that emerging. Now, we're not going to probably list off that. Like, we're probably not going to put in the footer like Riverside used for transcription of every newsletter. But I think when it's like thumbnail made in part by Nano Banana.

[A]

But do you want me to put that for Photoshop too? Or your expectation wouldn't be there if I was using Photoshop.

[D]

This is why I'm like, disclosure when you can or like disclosure when you feel like it's necessary. And that's why, honestly, unfortunately, the whole, the whole episode is about to boil down to it depends.

[E]

So that.

[A]

That's the answer, which to me, I think is a good outcome.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

If we can agree that there is a level of nuance and this is new and we're all figuring this out together and like, as creators, if we, you know, again, like with Hank, what my issue with the subject matter is, is when morality is placed on it. Morality and like, that to me feels like a different thing than like, yeah, I'm doing something, I'm doing too much. Right. Because I think it's like, yeah, all of a sudden these tools are allowing us to do more, but we're all probably making worse stuff if we're doing more, if we're driving efficiency not through our honesty it's just going to be worse stuff. So let's pull back to, like, what we can do do that's good and honest because that has always broken through. But we're in a. We're in a totally new era. And so, like, we're figuring it out together. And I think the audience and people who are watching, listening right now play a role in figuring this out with us. And, like, the malicious intent or the assumption of malicious intent is where I'm like that. To me, I know we know many of the top creators on YouTube. It is very hard for me to stand here and go, like, they have malicious intent or some immorality in their use of technology.

[C]

I think, though, my counter to this whole AI. Can you tell? Can you not tell? I want to ask both Samir and Colin this. Do you guys not think that it is aura? When you watch a video and the first thing that comes up on the screen is none of the assets in this video were made using AI, does that not make you feel like, yo, you. This, this is like you're watching Gen Z thing.

[D]

That's a generational thing. Because I feel that way.

[B]

So I will say quiche. Like, for me personally, that is a storytelling device.

[E]

Yes.

[B]

Like, you know, Andreas Hem, incredible filmmaker, made a great video where he did that. He said, none of this is made with AI. I am now using that as a lens to enjoy the video in a different way as I see the shots that he made.

[C]

So would you still feel the same things you feel when you watch a Natalie Lynn video if it was made with AI? Because, like, most of those videos are so personal or a Casey.

[A]

But I don't think that's possible, personally, if it, if it's becoming possible and I don't notice, you know, like, I don't know. But that presently I don't believe is possible. That, like, what Natalie has is honesty. She's telling an honest story. Now in five years or three years, do we get to a point, like, maybe, but I think as humans, we have a really good detection right now of, like, when someone's telling an honest story or not. Like, I just don't believe it's possible. Show me a video that feels like that, that, that.

[C]

Well, that's the thing. You wouldn't know, like, you wouldn't know if you have watched a video.

[A]

Yeah, My, my argument is, I think

[B]

I still felt the same sense of, like, beauty and wonder at the end of the video if you did.

[C]

It's not the same, though.

[E]

Like, yeah, I'm Gonna bring us back into the principles a little bit.

[A]

Yes.

[E]

So, number one, we have be honest in both how you're using AI and making something you want to make. I think the second principle is along what you said, that, like, it should feel human to the point where it's indistinguishable. Like, I think that is a big thing for me. Whereas, like, if I can have the same experience with or without knowing that it was made with AI, I think generally I'm okay with it.

[B]

And I only say that because, like, from my experience, I have similar to Sameer, I've tried to be an early adopter, and I've used AI to do different things. I used it to make graphics for the first video we made this year with James from Speed. And, you know, I'm someone who makes graphics. I'll make them in After Effects. So my. My line was, can I make this as good as. Can I make this the way I want to make it, regardless of the tool? And there was one graphic that got called out in that video in the comments a couple times, and I said, oh, okay, there's a line. I am not yet good enough at using this tool to make it indistinguishable for my audience. They are noticing that something is up. And that, to me, was the line. Not to say that I won't use it again when I get better. But I was, like, currently, that's my line, because I'm not as good as I should have been to make sure it didn't impact the story.

[A]

Yeah, I think there's a level of honest excitement, too. And we have to put forward, like, we. We've built multiple sites recently and, like, custom apps that I think are really cool. Like, our site for Lexus, for a Lexus campaign has this, like, the Lexus car driving around as the cursor. Like that. That's built with AI. We just built a quiz for our channel, and that's all built on Gemini, and it's super cool. And I have honest excitement to show this stuff to people. And I think that's a level, too, where it's like, there's something about what happened with Hank that feels like he's doing something behind closed doors that he's ashamed of.

[B]

Right. And that's honest to him.

[A]

And that's.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's honest to him.

[B]

Right. There could have been a scenario where Hank said, I am using these, and I'm going to continue to use them.

[E]

Totally.

[B]

Sorry that, like, you noticed this one, and it didn't Feel.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Can I ask you a quick question from a brand perspective? If. If he said Claude or Gemini, would the world have a different reaction? Does the audience have a different reaction than Chat GPT?

[D]

Yes. Yes. I think if you said Gemini, maybe, not if he said Claude. Absolutely different. I think it is so interesting to me to see. Sorry, what did I.

[A]

No, no, no.

[B]

Fascinating.

[D]

It is so interesting to me to see that these companies that are doing pretty much identical things, having identical environmental impacts, one of them doesn't place ads in its, like free. Like, I know Claude doesn't have ads. That's their whole thing, like in their prompted responses. I know that the free Chat GPT does, if I'm not mistaken. Besides that they are pretty indistinguishable and yet ChatGPT takes so much more flack. And I have never understood why we are not treating all of these LLMs with the same amount of disdain.

[E]

I think. I think part of it is ChatGPT is a much clearer figurehead in SAM SAM, which is way easier to attack a figurehead. Whereas, like, I don't even know who the head of Anthropic is really.

[D]

But yeah, I just heard his name yesterday and I can't remember.

[B]

I do think it's interesting to bring up. I mean, I'll never forget when Anthropic pulled out of the contract with the Defense department.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

And OpenAI stepped in and got the contract. And everyone was like, we are dropping OpenAI, we're dropping ChatGPT. Everyone download Claude. And I'm like, you think Claude wouldn't have taken that deal if the deal was right? Like, yeah, they would have been right there with him.

[E]

Let's bring it back. We have. We have two solid principles. Be honest and it should feel human. Is there anything else from you two that you think we can wrap this up? That's like a really good guideline others can use?

[B]

I think there's something around copying and imitation.

[A]

Yes, yes. References for sure.

[B]

Yeah. Using something as a reference, I think. And this is something that you should abide by, in my opinion, whether you're using AI or not, you should not imitate someone so clearly. Like, this needs. It's like steel. Like an artist, you have to take inspiration and reference, but where you take that inspiration has to go somewhere so far that that artist who originated that piece of work would be okay with what you've done with it. And that's all very subjective.

[A]

No, but I mean, Austin Kleon said it to us when he came on the show when we were asking. There's like a large amount of plagiarism in the YouTube community.

[D]

Right.

[A]

People just copy and paste, like, people's thumbnails, Instagram and video ideas. It's just constant. Right. Like, that is just the culture of the Internet, but it has become. AI has created an accelerant to that. And I think that is a rule, like a creator rule that should exist in every context. It's like an artistic rule. Like, don't copy my stuff.

[D]

Dance creds.

[A]

For real. Yeah. No, but you're right. You're right. Yeah. Like. Like, I take inspiration. Hundred percent. We take inspiration, we look at references and we try and see where we can get.

[B]

And then we make something that we are honestly excited about.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And when someone copies it, when, you know, they don't have honest excitement, they do it because they think it'll work. Yeah, it hinders my original excitement.

[A]

But I guess that is also the base premise, like this Principle 3. If it's like, steal like an artist, like, don't. Don't copy people directly. That, I guess is the base principle of the anger towards AI is that it is an amalgamation of everyone's work that you actually, even if you don't know it, you are pulling from. Yeah, right. That is. Is that one of, like the.

[D]

That's. It's the biggest pieces, data sets that scrape the Internet, that take your work, take his work, my work, everyone's images, likeness, and creative thoughts, and they repurpose and repackage. And so no original thought is really produced. And I think people are upset about that. They're also upset about the environmental aspect. I would say that's probably more important. But for the purposes of our conversation, that feels like the line.

[A]

Yeah, and if original thought, quote. Because I don't believe original thought exists outside of references. But if. If, like, I come up with something really creative based on reading three books, that feels very different.

[D]

Yeah, yeah, it does, because it's you. You made it.

[B]

But.

[A]

But, like the source material that is being given to me, I think.

[E]

Do you guys have any closing thoughts on just this situation in general or even this discussion about, like, where. Where do we want to leave people off and invite the conversation to continue?

[B]

My advice here for young creators, older creators, is just to make sure you protect your honest excitement for the work and for what you deliver. I think that's what matters. And in my opinion, Hank has spent years and years and years of his life developing the internal compass of what matters to him and his audience. And so the methods by which he delivers that information to his audience, in my opinion, does not hinder the relationship with his audience because he has an internal barometer.

[A]

I think if he, from what he has said and his experience, feels like he needs to reevaluate his whole process, his output, everything, that to me, I think is good. Because I don't think you should ever trade your excitement or your creative voice in exchange for efficiency. And I think that is actually just a broad danger amongst the creator community. Efficiency is very attractive in business. It becomes the outcome you're playing for as you're building a business. But what we all love about artists is the inefficiency. What we love about creators is the irrational nature of expressing an idea. It's why music and live music is so exciting is because it's just like this expression of something. And I think coming back to as much as creativity and technology have mixed because of this thing called the creator economy, creativity will always be most interesting when you are honestly interested in doing it versus productizing it. That I think to me is like the biggest takeaway is like, don't trade your excitement to create for efficiency.

[E]

Yeah. And if you have some other thoughts, leave them in the comments. I think one thing we've learned from researching all of this is there's been such a lack of nuanced discussion and I think it'd be great for people to be able to contribute to this.

[A]

Yeah, contribute to these principles. Like, what do you think in terms of how creators should or shouldn't be using AI? Colin and I talk about this a lot. We work with AI companies. We are early adopters of tech, we're fans of technology. But we wanted to bring the broader world of voices into the room because there's different perspectives and there's more nuance to this. And then to even broaden this out, to bring all of you into the room and give us your perspective. The last thing I'll say is just give everyone some grace. It's all new. It's all new. We're figuring it all out together. But, like, take this as an opportunity to open the discussion and, like, hear everyone's perspective. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Colin Smear Show. Leave your comments. Fun one. Thanks for joining, guys. Appreciate it.

[B]

Yeah, peace.