Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
76 70 82 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
60 42 78
All types combined: 74 (likely 68 to 80, high confidence), from 79 claims: 71 factual claims, 8 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Eliezer Yudkowsky's claims
3 claims
| Verdict | Kind | Said | Claim | Topic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mostly false | Factual | 16 Mar 2024 | Yudkowsky said it is known observationally that something about social media is harming people quite a lot, children more than adults. Factual · 16 Mar 2024 | Technology |
| Mostly false | Factual | 7 Apr 2023 | DeepMind, a leading AI lab, has no plan for AI alignment/safety. Factual · 7 Apr 2023 | AI safety and alignment |
| Mostly false | Prediction | 6 Apr 2023 | Paul Christiano will probably win his forecast disagreement with Yudkowsky on an AI getting IMO gold by 2025, with prediction-market odds then running around 30%. Prediction · 6 Apr 2023 | AI timelines and forecasting |
“We know observationally that something about social media is fucking people up quite a lot, kids even more so than adults; that could be one contributing factor among others.”
Eliezer Yudkowsky, writing on X 16 March 2024 Post by @ESYudkowsky on X, 2024-03-16 (X)
Yudkowsky said it is known observationally that something about social media is harming people quite a lot, children more than adults.
Mostly false False in substance, right in a detail.
What would count as true or false
Judged as of 16 March 2024 against the observational research on social media use and wellbeing. TRUE: authoritative reviews and bodies (e.g. the 2023 US Surgeon General advisory, major systematic reviews) treat observational evidence of substantial harm from social media as established, with consistently larger associations for children and adolescents than for adults. MOSTLY TRUE: observational studies consistently show associations between social media use and worse mental health, stronger in young people, but the effects are modest rather than 'quite a lot', or causality remains disputed while the evidence is still treated as a real concern. MIXED: one part holds and the other does not. For example, associations are documented, but there is no consistent evidence they are stronger in children than in adults, or the size of the harm is sharply disputed among leading researchers. MOSTLY FALSE: the observational associations found are small or inconsistent (e.g. Orben & Przybylski-style findings of negligible effects dominate), so 'known to be harming people quite a lot' overstates a weak correlation. FALSE: the observational evidence shows no association, or one that is stronger in adults than in children.
Evidence
- Adolescent Mental Health in the Digital Age: Facts, Fears and Future Directions PubMed Central (author manuscript of Odgers & Jensen, J Child Psychol Psychiatry)
“To summarize, a review of meta-analytic work, large-scale preregistered studies, and intensive daily and momentary assessments provides little evidence that engagement with digital media has substantial associations with adolescents’ mental health symptoms at the population level.”
- Adolescent Mental Health in the Digital Age: Facts, Fears and Future Directions PubMed Central (author manuscript of Odgers & Jensen, J Child Psychol Psychiatry)
“The review highlights that most research to date has been correlational, focused on adults versus adolescents, and has generated a mix of often conflicting small positive, negative and null associations.”
- Adolescent Mental Health in the Digital Age: Facts, Fears and Future Directions PubMed Central (author manuscript of Odgers & Jensen, J Child Psychol Psychiatry)
“None of the studies reviewed above tested, or were powered to test, whether associations differed by developmental stage.”
- Let’s Stop Shaming Teens About Social Media Use ASCD (Educational Leadership) · 4 January 2024
“A large meta-analysis of 226 studies in 2022 involving 275,728 participants led by Jeffrey Hancock estimated the overall association between social media and well-being as indistinguishable from zero.”
Reasoning
The Odgers & Jensen review finds "little evidence" that digital media use has substantial associations with adolescents' mental health at the population level (E1). It describes the research as mostly correlational, with conflicting small positive, negative and null associations (E2). It also notes that the studies it reviewed did not test whether associations differ by developmental stage, so it does not support the claim that the harm is larger in children (E3). A 2022 meta-analysis of 226 studies put the overall association between social media and well-being as indistinguishable from zero (E4). This matches the mostly-false criterion: small or inconsistent associations, so saying social media is known to be harming people "quite a lot" overstates the evidence.
Cite this claim
Eliezer Yudkowsky, “Yudkowsky said it is known observationally that something about social media is harming people quite a lot, children more than adults.” (said 16 March 2024). Verdict: mostly false. Reliability API, claim c_fc34813e9b1a, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_fc34813e9b1a
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Eliezer Yudkowsky? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.