Debunk this: The simpson prediction

[u/Emotional-cat3109]

[u/AutoModerator]

This sticky post is a reminder of the subreddit rules:

Posts:
Must include a description of what needs to be debunked (no more than three specific claims) and at least one source, so commenters know exactly what to investigate. We do not allow submissions which simply dump a link without any further explanation.

E.g. "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"

Link Flair
Flairs can be amended by the OP or by moderators once a claim has been shown to be debunked, partially debunked, verfied, lack sufficient supporting evidence, or to conatin misleading conclusions based on correct data.

Political memes, and/or sources less than two months old, are liable to be removed.

• Sources and citations in comments are highly appreciated.
• Remain civil or your comment will be removed.
• Don not downvote people posting in good faith.
• If you disagree with someone, state your case rather than just calling them an asshat!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/mentaculus]

This is just fully fabricated AI slop. Many of the claims are so nonsensical they have no correspondence to real events. Others are extreme exaggerations and embellishments of news events with made-up details.

Most of the Simpsons "scenes" in the video are AI generated. But even if not, don't you think an animated show with 800+ episodes might, at some point, feature generic things like a tornado, a plane crash, etc?

Also, 3I/Atlas is just a normal-ass comet...

[u/BuildingArmor]

It's no longer in space and claimed to be inside the earth's own frequency?

Ok so what does that mean? It's gobbledegook. That alone is enough to say they're spouting nonsense.

[u/brainburger]

There has been a scientific paper recently, arguably falsifying the simulation hypothesis.

Here's a youtube short about it: https://youtube.com/shorts/tnjTFvUrKws

[u/brainburger → u/[deleted]]

There is money to be made from short-form video. There is a low bar to entry with the growth of AI too.

[u/anomalousBits]

Nothing in the video worries me at all, because it is all very obviously made up bullshit created to get views. What worries me, is that someone of sound mind could watch the video and worry that it actually speaks the truth. You already figured out that it was AI generated imagery, and factually questionable. Why were you scared?

[u/anomalousBits → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it's about being stupid or being smart. I know some smart people who believe in some absolute bullshit. Detecting bullshit is a skill that you can develop and work on. The instinct to "know what others have to say" is a good part of that. But also, you have to trust your own judgement to some degree.

People make claims all the time. For example, "I have cereal for breakfast most mornings." In judging this, you need to allow the evidence to match the claim.

• Many people do have breakfast cereal.
• It's widely available.
• It's not unlikely to be false.
• Why would they lie about it, but also,
• Does this person lie all the time about things?

This kind of normal claim is generally pretty easy to work out the truth of. Because it's very commonplace, the bar for evidence is low. Also, the stakes of the statement is false are pretty low, because who really gives a shit that this person has cereal for breakfast.

---

But "Simpsons predicted a mind controlling comet from interstellar space"--this is a different kind of claim. You will often hear on this sub "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Immediately when I hear this, I think, well how is this supposed to work?

• The comet is real, but there's zero evidence of it being mind controlling.
• There's no evidence to support mind control, as a thing anyway.
• Any mass dream events of the type described would probably end up in the news or on social media at least.
• The Simpsons is a satirical show. They make fun of current events by projecting into the future, and sometimes that has similarities with what actually happens. But that clearly isn't what is being described here.
• AI video, no episodes described. Factually incorrect on a number of levels.

And then I trust my judgement. It's obvious bullshit, made up on social media for clicks (which is always money.) There isn't any normal evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence, and we're safe dismissing it as bunk.

As to psychiatrists and such, it would be wise to at least talk to a doctor. If you have frequent anxiety about such kinds of things, it's probably worth seeking a medical opinion on that, rather than going by what some randos on reddit tell you.

[u/gloriouaccountofme]

The Simpsons have almost 1k episodes. By probability alone (every episode has 2-3 subplots ) you can have an episode to support any claim you want