She seems to be after some hidden truth that "scientists" are not telling us. I’d be more appreciative of her insights if those were not implying we’ve been lied to. She should consider that 1. Being wrong is ok, doesn’t mean someone’s lying. 2. Maybe she is wrong. 3. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are fun and there’s nothing to be angry at. So I’m a bit skeptical about her skepticism, it doesn’t sound constructive to me.

The tone is off putting for me as well. It comes across as arrogant mixed with what I'll call a “Youtube language”: the TRUTH about X, what they don't wan't YOU to KNOW, along with excessively expressive thumbnail.

This “Youtube language” is something a lot of content creators suffer from, unfortunately.

I hate those titels, too, but let's be honest: They're a necessary sharade. If you want to earn any money from YouTube or even just get views, you need to please the algorithm. Sure, you can work without them, but it's like driving with the handbrake pulled.

The content of the videos is what matters. The advertising is annoying, but necessary.

Derek of Veritaseum made a video laying out why "clickbait-y" titles like that are necessary, and I feel like it makes a pretty good case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng

The tl;dw is that the most effective titles come right up against the edge of what an average target audience member would consider unacceptable on the axes of withheld information (to create a curiosity gap) and misleading sensationalism (to maximise the perceived importance of the topic); and you have to play the game of having effective titles because otherwise no one clicks on your video and it stops being recommended to people who would find it valuable.

I felt that this change reduced the quality of Veritasium, for me. I know it's just the titles, but it feels more bait and switch.

I understand why he did it, but wish he didn't. If I was a leader at YouTube I'd be pretty concerned about this - long term, it drives your platform in the direction of clickbait. Yeah there's benefits to that, but could also turn into a competitive weakness for YouTube. I think they should improve the recommender to make this unnecessary.

I saw that video. I don't need an explanation of why it's being done, it's pretty obvious and it works.

What I'm saying is that we can do better than 50 year olds making child-like expressions with clickbaity titles.

When he did this is basically when I decided to no longer watch his videos, and I don't regret this decision.

I think we can aspire to better than that. I do at least.

People click those titles and don't click other titles. No one cares that's it's not sufficiently uppity to satisfy the intellectual elite.

Evidently, at least two people care.

Really? Titles that are factually reflective of content are “uppity”, and not liking obviously intentional click-bait titles makes you “intellectual elite”? Wow. Welcome to the idiocracy.

Don't shoot the messenger

Alternatively, you could accept what is at root a rather small thing, and adjust you own reaction. That’s what I did when those kind of titles started to become common.

I deal with it, of course. I'm a heavy Youtube user. The net result is positive.

But it's extremely distasteful and I'm not willing to lower my standards because of this stupidity.

It’s not even about your or my standards. The overall tone of media sets the standard. There’s already a rising tide of anti-intellectualism that seeks to actively disparage intellectual thought as “uppity” as described in a comment above. This is not healthy for society. If you wonder how it was that in history, waves of advancement in knowledge seem to be followed by periods where things seem to go backwards, I find it easy to imagine that popular anti-intellectual sentiment would have looked very similar. Distrust of “elites” and disparagement of the philosophies of those “elites”, throwing out the baby with the bath water.

EDITED to add that what attaches itself to such sentiment (or stokes it), are cynical political actors happy to gain power irrespective of the cost to society.

>you need to please the algorithm

Don't blame the algorithm. Blame people themselves. It's not YouTube's fault that people find those kinds of titles more interesting.

Google put huge amounts of effort into punishing the search rankings of sites that attempted to manipulate their ranking in shady ways. YouTube could put in some amount of effort towards the same end.

Of course, that would probably reduce engagement...

"Making people want to click the video" is not shady in the same sense as SEO. A comparable trick might be jamming a bunch of keywords into the description.

Your real complaint is that people like stupid videos, but that's not YouTube's problem or fault.

The concern with SEO is that the goal is to drive traffic to a site without meaningfully improving the content. Doesn't the same argument apply here? If the video doesn't change, and it's just the title and thumbnail changing in an effort to get more clicks, how is that materially different from SEO?

Because it's the viewer deciding to choose the video, not some algorithm deciding what they get to choose from.

> Google put huge amounts of effort into punishing the search rankings of sites that attempted to manipulate their ranking in shady ways.

From the search results I get, it appears that they abandoned that effort long ago.

I read the article. I've read other articles of hers as well. And I don't read her that way at all.

What she primarily is, is someone who insists on experimental data as an anchor for physical theories. She's not totally against theory that isn't backed by experiment (despite her last paragraph or two), but given multiple competing theories that cannot be experimentally verified, she is unwilling to accept any one of them as "the truth". I don't think she's wrong in that.

Sorry I didn’t read the article. I plaid guilty. I have this feeling because of how she comes across on YouTube content, which might not be representative of her work.

Well, the article was the transcript of one of her YouTube posts. But the article doesn't tell me tone of voice, facial expression, and the like. So... maybe I have to say "Sorry, I didn't watch her on YouTube."

She makes very specific points on what can and can’t be reasonably treated as a scientific problem. Her main concern appears to be that much physics research and funding has deviated towards mathematical philosophy. Work which may be correct, but is untestable and ultimately unscientific.

Re point 2: she made a video on neural networks that I think many people here will be able to appreciate.

https://youtu.be/fxiHM11w-rk (about 2 minutes in)

Here is my first exposure to her. Its an in depth discusson on her own book. She does strike me as very cynical.

https://www.econtalk.org/sabine-hossenfelder-on-physics-real...

Doesn't Feynman Lectures book III explain kets fairly well?

Feynman was a YouTuber?

Have you read 'Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman'? Dude was a youtuber physicist in a world where youtube didn't exist.

Somebody put his lectures up on YouTube a long time ago.

If "person who's content is available on YouTube" qualifies one as a YouTuber, then yes

I think generally "YouTuber" is taken to mean somebody who is building particular YouTube personality/brand thing.

But even if we want to be very general and just parse it using default English, the -er suffix would mean someone who is doing something. I believe it would be more accurate to say Feynman was YouTubed.

Feynman most probably would be a youtuber if he were alive.

Even posthumously he’s been one of the most popular educators on youtube.

How did you go from "Feynman Lectures Book III" to "Youtube"? billfruit was asking about a book.

Let me answer for OP. Because all these lectures are actual recorded lectures that have been uploaded to YouTube.