After a first glance Looking back at the history of media, I'll take a second look at this topic, which is as old as humanity. It concerns the current, increasingly AI-driven media production.
So today I came across a YouTube video that deals with a scientific topic and explores the origin and foundations of the observable universe. A favorite topic among YouTubers, as the numerous videos and the incredible number of views and comments on such posts demonstrate. And indeed: The video is well-made, the content is fascinating, and its quality can certainly compete with similar popular science programs on public broadcasting, which, in terms of content, tend to be, let's say, rather conservative anyway. And there are no fees for the YouTube video.
While the title is a bit sensationalist, the video is otherwise quite inspiring and demonstrates once again how the materialistic worldview currently seems to be collapsing. Unfortunately, the video's authors fail to mention one of the founders of information theory, Norbert Wiener. Nor do they mention Konrad Zuse, the computer pioneer and eccentric Berliner who spoke of "computing space" as early as the 1950s. However, the authors do provide other relevant sources in their video, mostly from quantum physics, and construct a quite thought-provoking line of reasoning. As usual, the topic isn't fully explored, but that's no different from what you'd expect from the "public."
However, when I took a closer look at the channel, doubts and even a feeling of unease arose: Within a very short time, a large number of videos of similar quality were posted there, at least in terms of presentation. But when I searched for the original source of the video – in vain. The production style seems to be consistently the same, as does the style of delivery. Added to this are those irritating and even embarrassing phrases that immediately point to AI-generated content: "What if…".
My problem with the video is that, although presumably AI-generated, it's quite good and can certainly compete with the popular science productions that the public broadcasting system spends a lot of money on. Sooner or later, all science journalists, and even those who think they are, will use AI, which is just as legitimate in principle as using Google to research topics. It's simply the way things are going. And even the often-vaunted "quality journalism" of public broadcasting sometimes leaves much to be desired, both in terms of content and presentation. Even elaborately produced series like Terra X are repeatedly drowned out by blaring background music that ruins the segment. So, if the differences between AI-generated, low-cost mass production and the offerings of traditional media become increasingly blurred—well, what then? At the moment, I still prefer to stick with Professor Ganteför, who personally stands behind his content in front of the YouTube camera, especially since he too is increasingly moving away from a radically materialistic worldview. Is he one of the last of his kind?
