Narrow AND incorrect
More correct than whatever slop one liners you get from dudebros on the internet
Dumb alarmists raise alarm because they don’t have a real job and are afraid they won’t get funding if they don’t create sensationalism every time
Great, another reason to not like AI…
Not the fact that now every government can control that information if they wanted to?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Not really an issue if the knowledge they expose you to is still more than you can absorb. Classic web search can show you 10x more info but you will just skim it anyway and absorb only tiny portion of it.
This isn’t about individuals. We safeguard knowledge institutionally. For instance, everyone should read this open letter from the top mathematicians on the planet, describing how we are about to undermine our mathematical understanding IDIOCRACY style. (I’m paraphrasing.)
Essentially, mathematical proofs are worthless without the communities that discover them. We care about math proofs because they create these communities (safeguarding knowledge for the next generation), not vice versa.
Having ChatGPT assert a proof we lack the expertise to check defeats the purpose. Not to mention, we already know it will get things wrong because of Gödel incompleteness so this whole situation is peak irony.
Yes but that’s a completely different issue than the one the article describes.
You’re right, but the article had a similar flavor. Specifically, when looking up information, users should be discovering curious details that raise additional questions. The AI is a homogenizing service that removes this “creative discovery” aspect of information gathering.
Really narrow view of knowledge.
The danger of catapulting an entire generation into ai-fed answers isn’t the amount or quality of knowledge, it’s training people to ask and NOT verify, a pillar of attaining wisdom and true expertise.
Yes but that’s a completely different issue than the one the article describes.
You keep saying that and it’s not true.
Knowledge collapse due to AI feeding everyone the same answer without people having to do real research, aka comparing sources, will absolutely happen.
It’s like people can’t see data and extrapolate anymore.
Can you not see the numerous ways that funneling all information through a single source like AI is a terrible idea?
Hell off the top of my head, the consolidation of information to AI would easily let whatever company/govt that’s in charge change a narrative on a scale humanity has rarely or never seen.
Yes but that’s a completely different issue than the one the article describes.
There are a lot of reasons to hate AI, I don’t really buy into this one. “New technology only captures a subset of knowledge” is just not a new issue, and fearmongering around it is not new either.
I would be concerned about language collapse (i.e. models incrementally forget vocabulary + fail to adapt to new terms leading to language becoming incrementally worse) before I would worry about knowledge collapse, and I’m not that worries about language collapse.
It’s a pretty obvious issue to anybody who cares to look.
Well, unlike you, experts are worried. Consider how knowledge is gathered, stored, and disseminated. AI interferes with each of these steps in dramatic ways.
Fortunately I have media literacy and know that the existence of someone marketing a scary narrative doesn’t actually provide any credibility. I can read scary headlines and pass it through the “does the make sense?” filter before getting worried.
I agree the friction + manipulation that LLMs introduce is troubling, but “knowledge collapse” is the extreme end of that concern.
“thing doesn’t work on me, therefore it’s the same for everyone or not a problem”.
Fuckin classic lol.
It’s wild when people like you act wise but expose the complete lack of worldview extremely fast.
deleted by creator
Not since AI, it’s been since internet. No since national school. No, since religious teaching (this one is very dangerous). No since…
You know what, screw this. Knowledge where never the issue, cause the easier the acces is, the less you make it, and if you never process what you understand, you end up a complete dumb with high knowledge. The only difference is that you can’t trust any knowledge from anywhere on the internet anymore.
You are contradicting yourself. The first half of your comment seems to deny the deterioration of knowledge. The second half admits that “you can’t trust any knowledge from the internet anymore.”
So which is it? Is our relationship with technology epistemically suboptimal or not?
