Hank Green's Pushback and our AI Induced Anxiety
Monday Memo - August 3, AD2026
Welcome to the Monday Memo, where I explore the world’s enduring dynamics; grounded in first principles, philosophy, character, and statecraft, rather than passing fads.
AI ethics looks different when the product is an individual creator backed by a media company as opposed to a faceless media company where the outlet is the brand. The Economist and The New York Times can get away with inserting AI into their classic brands with less risk than a company built off of trust in a particular presenter, like a YouTube channel or Substack publication.
Educational creator and author William Henry Green II, known to his audience as Hank Green, recently apologized to his fans after facing criticism for his—admittedly—heavy reliance on generative AI during his research and creative process.
The controversy began when viewers suspected a phrase in an Ask Hank Anything segment was a chatbot-generated response that he read from a script in error. The uproar led Green to admit he had become compulsively dependent on LLMs to meet intense production deadlines.
“I appreciate the pushback.”
That phrase sounded like a million chatbot responses to user correction, when the human has to tell the machine it is wrong and the machine tries to sound chastened and compliant. Some viewers were already wary of Green’s relationship with AI when an image appeared in one of his recent videos that was clearly AI-generated and also just awful.1
In response to the backlash, Green acknowledged that using AI diluted his authenticity and compromised the trust he spent years building with his fandom, known as Nerdfighters.2 So, to address these concerns and prioritize his mental health, Green announced a step back. He is pausing some projects and reducing his output. This story is a big deal in the debate over the place of AI in the domain of human thinking and creativity because of who Hank Green is and how he built his online community.
Hank Green, alongside his brother John Green, founded and ran Complexly, the media studio behind mega YouTube hit channels like Crash Course, SciShow, and PBS Eons. Complexly has thousands of videos and literally billions of views. Teachers assign his videos as study aids or to add color to their in-class lectures. I have used two Crash Course videos for my intro to ancient history lecture because they are silly and get the point across. Hank Green was a YouTube giant a decade before anyone heard of ChatGPT.
And yet, despite having a team of research employees and a library of material, Hank Green succumbed to the production pressure to use AI rather than the non-AI workflow that built his success story. And the consequence of using AI that way was that the AI intruded into his relationship with his audience and its bad output slipped into his product.
AI can create a fake feedback loop that makes you think you are productive when you are not actually using your time the best way. Friends, co-researchers, and employees—people—are the ones who exist with you in the real world. They tell you when you should pull back, chill, or go on sabbatical. The chatbot cannot replace the real human feedback. Hank Green’s revelation is a caution, a warning.
Ironically, his use of the phrase “I appreciate the pushback” was not from reading an AI script, it was genuinely ad libbed, and if I had seen the video before the controversy I would never have heard it as AI. But that many people heard that phrase and associated it with AI is another indicator that there is a problem with the infiltration of chatbots into how people interpret conversations and media. “Tapestry” is a word used to illustrate complex connections flowing together that was a cliché before it was assumed to be AI. But now, when people think of it, they are reminded of early model AI slop writing and assume AI was involved when you use it.
For some people, AI is not only stealing their ability to produce, it is messing up their ability to interpret. Humans are hallucinating AI when it is not there, and they are imagining productivity gains that are unproven. AI use requires wisdom and restraint. It also requires that we as consumers prioritize and reward lower-volume work that is good quality.
My own writing benefited when I made the decision to keep my weekly Substack posts shorter and reserve my longer-form writing for when I had a story that really needed more words. I hope Hank Green finds his balance.
Hank Green apologized, and he should not be made into a whipping boy. Mercy and understanding are needed as society navigates the consequences of consumer AI availability.
Many years ago, when Rome conquered Greece, there was a perception that the Greeks were more cultured. So, some Roman citizen would buy an educated Greek slave to take part in high-brow conversations. When answering a question or engaging in a discussion, the Roman would wait for his Greek slave to say something, and then would repeat that to his Roman peer. No one would blink over the fact that the same words have already sounded by the slave, as if the slave did not exist.
Why don't we accept the same attitude towards AI today?
My response to this is not about Mr. Green's use of AI, its use and abuse is rampant, it has become almost the air we breathe and the sea we swim in. Rather, it is about Ethics itself. And it isn't so much a comment as a series of questions. Above Mr. Draganov mentions the Greeks and Romans. The Greeks formed the basis of their Ethics on Homer, the Romans drew from that font as well but synthesized Stoicism also from the Greeks into their ancient custom to form the basis of their ethics. The later West drew is core Ethics from the OT and NT. Each had a common standard by which to measure Ethics. What is the foundation for Ethics in a Post-Christian west? Or is there no ethical standard? Is the very concept of ethics now so fluid that in reality there is no foundation for Ethics other than how we feel about something? Oh, that triggered a thought. When I was growing up and in school and teacher or professor asked an open-ended question, they didn't ask, how or what do you "feel" about that, they asked how or what do you "think" about that. When I student beings their response with, well I feel... I know immediately that they have not thought about the topic, not considered causes, course, and consequence; nor have they considered alternatives, nor have they applies a standard other than their emotional response. Sorry to take the conversation in a different direction, which simply shows, I'm thinking about it rather than "feeling" about it. How do we teach ethics and ethical behavior without an ethical standard upon which to base it? How do you, Albert and other readers, shape your ethics? What standard do you use?