In a recent Hank Green video, the phrase “I appreciate the pushback” led some viewers to suspect the involvement of artificial intelligence, triggering backlash and prompting Green to issue a public apology. Interestingly, the line wasn’t even crafted by AI.
Green, known for his work on YouTube channels like SciShow and Crash Course, clarified in his apology on X that the line was indeed his own creation. However, the reaction from the public prompted him to admit that he had been heavily utilizing ChatGPT for researching video scripts. On Reddit, he described his reliance on the tool as “not healthy,” adding, “I’ve been moving so fast that my own process isn’t actually clear to me.” Green now plans to produce videos at a slower rate.
Green’s revelation highlights a subtle way AI is influencing science communication: as a research tool. Under tight deadlines, a chatbot can efficiently bring up research papers, summarize new material, and help communicators find their footing. This means it can shape understanding before explanations are even crafted.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Those interviewed for this story expressed caution about allowing AI to generate public content, preferring its use for research and other non-public tasks.
Kanta Dihal, an associate professor of science communication at Imperial College London, believes AI can assist science communicators in managing the pressure to produce content quickly and in processing the vast amount of research available.
“Because of the sheer volume of scientific output that there is, it’s so hard to keep track of everything that goes on,” she says. “And so to have a system in place that can just do the filtering and the data trawling is nice, because, at a human pace, it’s almost impossible to keep up with science.”
The boundaries for AI use vary among communicators. Raven Baxter, a molecular biologist and science communicator also known as “Raven the Science Maven,” employs AI for coding and understanding audience preferences. However, she prefers consulting other scientists outside her expertise instead of relying solely on AI.
“I’m hoping we can kind of rebel against it and get back to building community as science communicators and leaning on each other for information,” Baxter says.
Joe Hanson, who hosts Be Smart on PBS, has used AI to navigate complex topics but insists that efficiency should not compromise audience relationships.
“All content creators depend on a trusted relationship with their audience, but that’s only amplified in science communication. It is our currency,” he says. “People turn to us not for entertainment or comedy but for a trusted interpreter of complex, hard-to-understand things about the universe. So if it’s in your job description, you need to take it seriously.”
Daphne Ippolito, who studies natural language processing at Carnegie Mellon University, warns of the risk of “homogenization of language” when AI is used extensively in writing.
“Something I’ve seen happening at various levels in academia, and I’m sure outside of academia as well, is: when people start to rely on AI so much to help with their writing, they start talking and communicating like the AI. So they will say things or communicate things that are authentically them, but their authentic self and how they communicate has been influenced by their usage of AI.”
Hanson believes that there is no single rule for AI use in science communication. He suggests that communicators must determine boundaries with their audiences, as comfort levels with AI can differ.
“If people are looking for a universal rule about what is acceptable and where, I think they will always find themselves wanting. But our duty is to our audiences,” Hanson says. “And we have seen that you must be clear and honest with your audience, listen to their reaction and use that as your answer on whether you’re going to use this in your work.”
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
