5 ms·

Agree. It'd be nice if there were some universal "just take me to the source" feature in media. I know most of what I see on YouTube is just other people reacti

Agree. It'd be nice if there were some universal "just take me to the source" feature in media. I know most of what I see on YouTube is just other people reacting to, or re-reading, or generally regurgitating prior people's material.

consumer451 2y ago
> It'd be nice if there were some universal "just take me to the source" feature in media. I believe that I have made a similar comment on HN before. If we lived in a full trust environment, then the page would contain something like <link rel="canonical-source" ... Since we don't live in a full trust environment, this seems like a really good use case of an LLM-based search engine. Given context understanding + standard search index meta data, a GPTSearch type of product should be really good at finding the original source, shouldn't it?
nordsieck 2y ago
> I know most of what I see on YouTube is just other people reacting to, or re-reading, or generally regurgitating prior people's material. The cool thing is that you can get genuine investigative journalism if you know where to look. For example, here is Covert Cabal who has bought several satellite photos of Russian tank storage bases and just counted up the tanks there. And has done this several times over the course of the Ukraine war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWCEZUQtUwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWCEZUQtUwE
- solarkraft 2y ago
  But only if you really know where to look (and people who share links often don’t). I’d give a good bit for something that automatically takes me to real sources.
  - nordsieck 2y ago
    > But only if you really know where to look (and people who share links often don’t). I’d give a good bit for something that automatically takes me to real sources. IMO, the problem with that is judgement/credibility. People have discovered that it's way cheaper and easier to follow the form of investigative journalism, but not actually do the hard work. And it's easy to be suckered in if you're not careful. And you can't outsource that job, or you'll end up just believing everything in the NYTimes. Which is honestly, probably pretty good like 70% of the time. But I've seen enough terrible takes there that I just can't do it. As an example: I used to read everything from Malcom Gladwell. And I was really sad to learn that he cares much more about a good story than telling the truth. Which would be fine if he was open about it. But you'll run into lots of people who still believe the stuff he writes. And it could very well be that I'm totally wrong and he's right about everything that he writes. And that it's my judgement that's compromised. Ultimately everyone's life is in their own hands and they're ultimately responsible for what they believe. Because everyone suffers (or benefits from) the consequences of holding their own beliefs.

consumer451 2y ago

> It'd be nice if there were some universal "just take me to the source" feature in media. I believe that I have made a similar comment on HN before. If we lived in a full trust environment, then the page would contain something like <link rel="canonical-source" ... Since we don't live in a full trust environment, this seems like a really good use case of an LLM-based search engine. Given context understanding + standard search index meta data, a GPTSearch type of product should be really good at finding the original source, shouldn't it?

nordsieck 2y ago

> I know most of what I see on YouTube is just other people reacting to, or re-reading, or generally regurgitating prior people's material. The cool thing is that you can get genuine investigative journalism if you know where to look. For example, here is Covert Cabal who has bought several satellite photos of Russian tank storage bases and just counted up the tanks there. And has done this several times over the course of the Ukraine war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWCEZUQtUwE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWCEZUQtUwE

solarkraft 2y ago
But only if you really know where to look (and people who share links often don’t). I’d give a good bit for something that automatically takes me to real sources.
- nordsieck 2y ago
  > But only if you really know where to look (and people who share links often don’t). I’d give a good bit for something that automatically takes me to real sources. IMO, the problem with that is judgement/credibility. People have discovered that it's way cheaper and easier to follow the form of investigative journalism, but not actually do the hard work. And it's easy to be suckered in if you're not careful. And you can't outsource that job, or you'll end up just believing everything in the NYTimes. Which is honestly, probably pretty good like 70% of the time. But I've seen enough terrible takes there that I just can't do it. As an example: I used to read everything from Malcom Gladwell. And I was really sad to learn that he cares much more about a good story than telling the truth. Which would be fine if he was open about it. But you'll run into lots of people who still believe the stuff he writes. And it could very well be that I'm totally wrong and he's right about everything that he writes. And that it's my judgement that's compromised. Ultimately everyone's life is in their own hands and they're ultimately responsible for what they believe. Because everyone suffers (or benefits from) the consequences of holding their own beliefs.