u/aset_water

I came across a new YouTube channel called Chloe VS History that gets massive views. It's 100% AI generated, the person "Chloe" doesn't even exist. There's a Sky News video interviewing the owner of the channel and you can see that even the script is AI generated.

Yet, when you open the comment section, there's a sea of people praising and defending it, saying things like "This is what AI is supposed to be used for"

Even this Reddit thread defends the channel: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/1srdzfs/ai_slop_channel_chloe_vs_history/

There are also people making debunking videos about the channel, pointing out tons of small historical inaccuracies like people walking in chariot lanes or common people wearing the clothing of high status politicians.

My question is: why is this not considered AI slop? It takes a lot less effort compared to a high quality human-made video, it's still riddled with inaccuracies and the person in the videos doesn't even exist!

I'm genuinely baffled by this.

Little Albert asks his father: "Dad, what is a vagina?"

"The vagina is a function, my son. You pass your penis into it and a child comes out."

"Wow! But what is a penis?"

"The penis is a variable, my son."

"What kind of variable?"

"Well... the function is designed to expect a ulong. But you, my son, are living proof that it compiles with a ushort."

"How did that happen, dad?"

"I never dropped the u."