5 ms·

There's a very implicit assumption in this text that the encyclopedia you buy in 2024 does NOT contain all sorts of AI-generated stuff. Not sure I have that mu

There's a very implicit assumption in this text that the encyclopedia you buy in 2024 does NOT contain all sorts of AI-generated stuff. Not sure I have that much faith in the world anymore to trust that to be true.

Mvandenbergh 2y ago
The timelines for encyclopaedia article contributions, editing and publishing are such that I highly doubt that an encyclopaedia bought in 2024 has much if any LLM generated content. I wouldn't want to make that bet for an encyclopaedia published in 2027 though.
keiferski 2y ago
Knowledge of and use of AI tools in non-tech industries is still pretty low. I wouldn’t expect a publisher of encyclopedias to implement AI tools for years.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  AI disclaimers already appear in journalism. It's a short leap to the broader traditional publishing world.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    I don’t think that’s true. Traditional publishing is much more time consuming and expensive and doesn’t have the instant publishing model that online journalism does. In general tech workers on HN tend to overestimate how familiar with technology non-tech workers are.
- hammyhavoc 2y ago
  AI in publishing is already a huge problem. https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-ai-deal-1851539065 https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-a... https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ https://www.wired.com/story/scammy-ai-generated-books-flooding-amazon/ https://www.wired.com/story/scammy-ai-generated-books-floodi...
  - keiferski 2y ago
    Publishing an encyclopedia is a considerably more lengthy process than publishing papers in journals. I also don't think you actually read the articles you linked to. The first one says that the publisher is planning on using AI, it doesn't say that they have already. As I said in the initial comment: > I wouldn’t expect a publisher of encyclopedias to implement AI tools for years. Meaning, an encyclopedia bought today won't be using these tools. Which is what the grandfather comment was about.
    - hammyhavoc 2y ago
      I'll contextualize it better for you as I don't think you understood the unifying theme of two Wiley-related articles: May 16th: Wiley shuts down journals over AI use: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ June 13th: Wiley book series is going to be using AI: https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-ai-deal-1851539065 https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-a... My interest in Wiley is that my late uncle helped them to "go digital" decades ago, and remained remotely as a proofreader, editor and fact-checker for physics titles. He would be spinning in his grave if he weren't cremated. Honestly depressing to see it happen. Ten bucks says there's LLM-generated content in encyclopedias today because LLMs have been mainstream for a few years now, and even prominent scientists and experts have been caught out "writing" with LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01268 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01268 Why wouldn't there be LLM-generated content in encyclopedias today if it's been (ab)used for several years now? Seems a little naive, especially when even Wiley (wow) is openly embracing AI now with a sudden heelturn.
      - keiferski 2y ago
        Again, because publishing to an online-only journal is not the same as publishing a paper encyclopedia. The former has far, far less resources required and processes required in order to publish it. The journals shut down were not particularly well-regarded ones and they were known as paper mills prior to them using AI. The Dummies series is hardly a paragon of excellence either. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if these companies start using LLMs in the near future, but as I said in another comment, I think the average tech person vastly overestimates how much the average person keeps up-to-date on the latest LLM developments. They also tend to overhype how much society will be transformed by tech, largely because getting VC dollars depends on that hype. These things are still in their infancy and I'd expect them to be used soon, but the people running encyclopedias are not so up-to-date on the latest LLM developments to have already incorporated them into publications planned years ago.
teeray 2y ago
Pre-LLM content is going to be this century’s Low Background Steel[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
9cb14c1ec0 2y ago
Encyclopedias that have built their reputation on being written by subject matter experts should hopefully be free of AI text.
- namaria 2y ago
  This is funny to me because the value of buying physical books is enhanced by the fact that publishers and authors have strong incentives to fact check what they put out. GP thinks this means little protection against LLM slop. While another commenter claims they think physical publications are too slow to keep up with current rates of change. Two opposite and equally nonsensical reasons to dismiss physical books. The more confused people get the higher the value of clarity of mind.

Mvandenbergh 2y ago

The timelines for encyclopaedia article contributions, editing and publishing are such that I highly doubt that an encyclopaedia bought in 2024 has much if any LLM generated content. I wouldn't want to make that bet for an encyclopaedia published in 2027 though.

keiferski 2y ago

Knowledge of and use of AI tools in non-tech industries is still pretty low. I wouldn’t expect a publisher of encyclopedias to implement AI tools for years.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
AI disclaimers already appear in journalism. It's a short leap to the broader traditional publishing world.
- keiferski 2y ago
  I don’t think that’s true. Traditional publishing is much more time consuming and expensive and doesn’t have the instant publishing model that online journalism does. In general tech workers on HN tend to overestimate how familiar with technology non-tech workers are.
hammyhavoc 2y ago
AI in publishing is already a huge problem. https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-ai-deal-1851539065 https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-a... https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ https://www.wired.com/story/scammy-ai-generated-books-flooding-amazon/ https://www.wired.com/story/scammy-ai-generated-books-floodi...
- keiferski 2y ago
  Publishing an encyclopedia is a considerably more lengthy process than publishing papers in journals. I also don't think you actually read the articles you linked to. The first one says that the publisher is planning on using AI, it doesn't say that they have already. As I said in the initial comment: > I wouldn’t expect a publisher of encyclopedias to implement AI tools for years. Meaning, an encyclopedia bought today won't be using these tools. Which is what the grandfather comment was about.
  - hammyhavoc 2y ago
    I'll contextualize it better for you as I don't think you understood the unifying theme of two Wiley-related articles: May 16th: Wiley shuts down journals over AI use: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/16/wiley_journals_ai/ June 13th: Wiley book series is going to be using AI: https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-ai-deal-1851539065 https://qz.com/for-dummies-books-publisher-john-wiley-sons-a... My interest in Wiley is that my late uncle helped them to "go digital" decades ago, and remained remotely as a proofreader, editor and fact-checker for physics titles. He would be spinning in his grave if he weren't cremated. Honestly depressing to see it happen. Ten bucks says there's LLM-generated content in encyclopedias today because LLMs have been mainstream for a few years now, and even prominent scientists and experts have been caught out "writing" with LLMs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01268 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01268 Why wouldn't there be LLM-generated content in encyclopedias today if it's been (ab)used for several years now? Seems a little naive, especially when even Wiley (wow) is openly embracing AI now with a sudden heelturn.
    - keiferski 2y ago
      Again, because publishing to an online-only journal is not the same as publishing a paper encyclopedia. The former has far, far less resources required and processes required in order to publish it. The journals shut down were not particularly well-regarded ones and they were known as paper mills prior to them using AI. The Dummies series is hardly a paragon of excellence either. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if these companies start using LLMs in the near future, but as I said in another comment, I think the average tech person vastly overestimates how much the average person keeps up-to-date on the latest LLM developments. They also tend to overhype how much society will be transformed by tech, largely because getting VC dollars depends on that hype. These things are still in their infancy and I'd expect them to be used soon, but the people running encyclopedias are not so up-to-date on the latest LLM developments to have already incorporated them into publications planned years ago.

teeray 2y ago

Pre-LLM content is going to be this century’s Low Background Steel[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

9cb14c1ec0 2y ago

Encyclopedias that have built their reputation on being written by subject matter experts should hopefully be free of AI text.

namaria 2y ago
This is funny to me because the value of buying physical books is enhanced by the fact that publishers and authors have strong incentives to fact check what they put out. GP thinks this means little protection against LLM slop. While another commenter claims they think physical publications are too slow to keep up with current rates of change. Two opposite and equally nonsensical reasons to dismiss physical books. The more confused people get the higher the value of clarity of mind.