4 ms·

You're not too far off from the arguments people made about the internet not too long ago. It's too easy to access information that could easily be incorrect...

You're not too far off from the arguments people made about the internet not too long ago. It's too easy to access information that could easily be incorrect...even maliciously so! You're better off sticking to published books and journals from respectable organizations that vet their authors and review their publications! Then again, who's in control of those printing presses? How can you trust the publishers to not push their own politics and agendas? You're probably better off finding a religious organization you can trust to help filter out the bad stuff. Help you see things through the proper perspective.

c3534l 4y ago
The problem is people weren't wrong about the internet. In fact, they couldn't grasp the magnitude of the problem it would create, and the complete transformation it would have on media, politics, and culture.
- candiodari 4y ago
  As someone who vaguely remembers the 90s I can tell you that there is no transformation in media, politics or culture. Well, there is. But the difference people describe, that politics used to be based on sound science and now, with the internet/facebook/fake news/tiktok changed to be based on total bullshit. Not true. Not because media and politics aren't currently almost exclusively bullshit. But because that wasn't any different in the 90s. Back then media was full of bullshit, and politics reacted 100 times to media bullshit for every time it reacted to actual science. Hell, there's positive evolution too, I think the BBC has actually improved their fact checking since back then, for example. And I actually know what is trustworthy. I didn't know in the 90s.
chrismcb 4y ago
But... With books you know who is publishing them. You might know who is in charge of a website. At least with Wikipedia sources are cited. With gpt, nothing.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  Just had a dinner conversation where ChatGPT was characterized as automated plagiarism, and then I thought wouldn’t it be cool to get like a set of BibTex entries for all the sources whose content were combined to synthesize an output. Not sure that’s possible, and even if so, that it would be any kind of reasonable or manageable size whatsoever.
  - AbuAssar 4y ago
    perplexity.ai does this
  - roncesvalles 4y ago
    You'd see hallucination in the citations too. Ultimately, you can't get away from having to manually verify everything that an LLM outputs.
    - lee101 4y ago
      I run the cheaper self hostable OpenAI alternative https://text-generator.io https://text-generator.io I've been working on automating this manual verification of everything, with a few components we already have like a search engine and an edit API we can both detect and correct most of these errors to at least be reflective of what a reliable source says like Wikipedia, still a lot of reasoning, logic and math issues will remain, but there's a big step up coming soon in factual generation
      - fche 4y ago
        | what a reliable source says like Wikipedia oh dear me

c3534l 4y ago

The problem is people weren't wrong about the internet. In fact, they couldn't grasp the magnitude of the problem it would create, and the complete transformation it would have on media, politics, and culture.

candiodari 4y ago
As someone who vaguely remembers the 90s I can tell you that there is no transformation in media, politics or culture. Well, there is. But the difference people describe, that politics used to be based on sound science and now, with the internet/facebook/fake news/tiktok changed to be based on total bullshit. Not true. Not because media and politics aren't currently almost exclusively bullshit. But because that wasn't any different in the 90s. Back then media was full of bullshit, and politics reacted 100 times to media bullshit for every time it reacted to actual science. Hell, there's positive evolution too, I think the BBC has actually improved their fact checking since back then, for example. And I actually know what is trustworthy. I didn't know in the 90s.

chrismcb 4y ago

But... With books you know who is publishing them. You might know who is in charge of a website. At least with Wikipedia sources are cited. With gpt, nothing.

sixstringtheory 4y ago
Just had a dinner conversation where ChatGPT was characterized as automated plagiarism, and then I thought wouldn’t it be cool to get like a set of BibTex entries for all the sources whose content were combined to synthesize an output. Not sure that’s possible, and even if so, that it would be any kind of reasonable or manageable size whatsoever.
- AbuAssar 4y ago
  perplexity.ai does this
- roncesvalles 4y ago
  You'd see hallucination in the citations too. Ultimately, you can't get away from having to manually verify everything that an LLM outputs.
  - lee101 4y ago
    I run the cheaper self hostable OpenAI alternative https://text-generator.io https://text-generator.io I've been working on automating this manual verification of everything, with a few components we already have like a search engine and an edit API we can both detect and correct most of these errors to at least be reflective of what a reliable source says like Wikipedia, still a lot of reasoning, logic and math issues will remain, but there's a big step up coming soon in factual generation
    - fche 4y ago
      | what a reliable source says like Wikipedia oh dear me