Agreed. Another example in the first minute of the "Attention is all you need" one.
"[Transformers .. replaced...] ...the suspects from the time.. recurrent networks, convolution, GRUs".
GRU has no place being mentioned here. It's hallucinated in effect, though, not wrong. Just a misdirecting piece of information not in the original source.
GRU gives a Ben Kenobi vibe: it died out about when this paper was published.
But it's also kind of misinforming the listener to state this. GRUs are a subtype of recurrent networks. It's a small thing, but no actual professor would mention GRUs here I think. It's not relevant (GRUs are not mentioned in the paper itself) and mentioning RNNs and GRUs is a bit like saying "Yes, uses both Ice and Frozen Water"
So while the conversational style gives me podcast-keep-my-attention vibes.. I feel a uncanny valley fear. Yes each small weird decision is not going to rock my world. But it's slightly distorting the importance. Yes a human could list GRUs just the same, and probably, most professors would mistake or others.
But it just feels like this is professing to be the next, all-there thing. I don't see how you can do that and launch this while knowing it produces content like that. At least with humans, you can learn from 5 humans and take the overall picture - if only one mentions GRU, you move on. If there's one AI source, or AI sources that all tend to make the same mistake (e.g. continuing to list an inappropriate item to ensure conversational style), that's very different.
"[Transformers .. replaced...] ...the suspects from the time.. recurrent networks, convolution, GRUs".
GRU has no place being mentioned here. It's hallucinated in effect, though, not wrong. Just a misdirecting piece of information not in the original source.
GRU gives a Ben Kenobi vibe: it died out about when this paper was published.
But it's also kind of misinforming the listener to state this. GRUs are a subtype of recurrent networks. It's a small thing, but no actual professor would mention GRUs here I think. It's not relevant (GRUs are not mentioned in the paper itself) and mentioning RNNs and GRUs is a bit like saying "Yes, uses both Ice and Frozen Water"
So while the conversational style gives me podcast-keep-my-attention vibes.. I feel a uncanny valley fear. Yes each small weird decision is not going to rock my world. But it's slightly distorting the importance. Yes a human could list GRUs just the same, and probably, most professors would mistake or others.
But it just feels like this is professing to be the next, all-there thing. I don't see how you can do that and launch this while knowing it produces content like that. At least with humans, you can learn from 5 humans and take the overall picture - if only one mentions GRU, you move on. If there's one AI source, or AI sources that all tend to make the same mistake (e.g. continuing to list an inappropriate item to ensure conversational style), that's very different.
I don't like it.