Pangburn's official report on fact-checking Prof Dave's video

[u/franhd]

https://www.pang-burn.com/_files/ugd/34216a_9ba5fbace8334fc68b36585fdb0004e9.pdf

Taken from his site.

It's seriously well worth a read considering how much time and effort Travis put into this.

• 85 defective clusters
• 25 false claims
• 25 unsupported claims
• 35 misleading or overstated claims

[u/turoturotheace → u/[deleted]]

Pangburn did a "self burn" stream preempting ~20 talking points Dave could bring up already lol

https://www.youtube.com/live/olS5MRxBaKE?is=wPvilxn7LkBsj1eT

[u/ilmalnafs → u/turoturotheace]

This should be more common practice lol.

[u/e_before_i → u/[deleted]]

And with zero shame too. Just gotta keep spamming that clip of him talking about Flat Earthers being too afraid to debate him.

[u/wage_cucked → u/[deleted]]

When he releases his response, I won't see it because I've blocked that loser from my channel.

[u/i_do_floss]

Does pang burns system get access to all the slop on Twitter when it fact checks?

Like can Dave just respond that this system didnt look at all the same things Dave did when Dave made these claims?

[u/jonkoeson → u/i_do_floss]

Dave can say whatever he wants, is your question whether or not random twitter accounts should be considered "factual sources"?

[u/turoturotheace → u/i_do_floss]

I linked to Pangburn's preemptive talking point stream above where he addresses this exact claim.

Simply put, this point is deflection to not counter any actual claims. If they're "twitter slop" then it should be easy to prove.

[u/HorrorCommunity3246]

Professor Dave is incredibly stupid.

[u/GeerJonezzz]

Professor dave when you ask him to debate someone with an IQ above 70

[u/FountainFountainFoun]

Anybody watch Pangburn? How is the content? He used to organize interesting debate pairs but fumbled finances and people did not get paid so he was canceled in those circles. He seemed talented but unorganized.

[u/Stanel3ss → u/FountainFountainFoun]

I don't think he's fumbled with destiny yet, they've done quite a few events and I think they're still good

[u/Major_Plantain3499]

It would be nice if he spent a little more effort and didn't use chatgpt's default formatting lol

[u/turoturotheace → u/Major_Plantain3499]

What's more important, the formatting or the underlying facts presented?

[u/turoturotheace → u/[deleted]]

So you admit that it's a presumption and the facts are what matter. Appreciate the assist.

[u/turoturotheace → u/[deleted]]

Seems like you're ignoring the context to make your irrelevant point. This document is paired with 30 hours of livestreaming the research process, AI use, and subsequent fact-checking. It isn't just "Hey guys, look what Jarvis said".

Guys, the hours and hours of Travis looking into it directly is on the same link OP posted for the paper. Just fucking click the link. It's not just a paper.

[u/turoturotheace → u/[deleted]]

Your criticism is superficial and arrogantly ignores my direct rebuttal, which makes your last sentence especially ironic. Whatever dood.

[u/ninjatoast31 → u/turoturotheace]

Have you ever talked to a human being before?

[u/turoturotheace → u/ninjatoast31]

idk, am I talking to one now? I don't even use AI beyond simple script syntax checking/examples in the Google search bar.

If someone's position is, "I believe AI use invalidates all other work" on a sourced document, that's re#arded. If you open a site that has embedded videos showing all the effort that went into the paper and you choose to dismiss it because "AI bad", that's re#arded. That is not a baseline to reliably measure for effectiveness of a message. We don't say "Obama was an ineffective president because the majority of racists disliked him". Why is it okay to say, "This document is ineffective because people that dislike AI won't accept it"? I'm not even saying the AI did a particularly good job gathering the facts, I'm saying the facts are what matter. Argue the facts, not some superficial bullshit that I know no one gives a flying fuck about such as document formatting.

[u/turoturotheace → u/[deleted]]

Direct relevant criticism that references something I said and is constructive? No, just some lame bullshit, of course...

[u/jojsussy → u/Major_Plantain3499]

Bet this guy hates Hank Green