3 ms·

Not everything on the internet is "half-assed Wikihow articles or one-size-fits-all OpenAI-hallucinated slop." If that's your view of all internet content I rec

Not everything on the internet is "half-assed Wikihow articles or one-size-fits-all OpenAI-hallucinated slop." If that's your view of all internet content I recommend learning to find good information, which is more accessible and prevalent than anytime in history. That is why magazines are dying - the interent provides anything a magazine does, but with more depth, more solid authors, and more accessible. If a magazine article is too shallow, or above your head, or below your level, then you're stuck. But with the internet and basic searching skills, you can find any level of content, in writing, in video, with projects and how-to's, detailed explanations, teardowns, DIYs stuf, fundamental technical specs and protocols, and on and on.

dartos 2y ago
Not everything, but at this point it’s the vast majority of content and most certainly the most common content the major search engines serve up.
- SideQuark 2y ago
  Vast majority? That needs some proof. I routinely find the stuff I want on the first page of search, solid, deep content. Do people simply not know how to search? Most any topic has a wikipedia article on page 1, which is always a good gateway to learn an intro to something, and usually has links to much deeper content. Some tests: "chess" returns all pretty good content. "electronic music" - all good stuff, from wikipedia, to subreddits on EDM and related, to encyc britannica, and one news story. "how to cook salmon" - again all really good stuff: first few are simple and correct recipes, then a few videos, some reddit topics. Not a single crappy link. "who is quincy jones" - wikipedia hit top, news that he died today (quite a good set of links, no crackpot sites), his website, his instagram, National Endowment of the Arts link, encyclopedia britannica link. "does quantum entanglement violate local realism?" All good. Even pop stuff like "does taylor swift or the beatles have more grammys" has all good, solid hits: wikipedia, grammy.com, reddit post, quora, forbes, NYT,BBC, popvortex with a list of all grammys. Every link answered the question, is not wikihow, and is not AI generated. Yep, as I expected. My guess is you didn't actually try and just made a claim without evidence. Give me some topics for which the "the vast majority of content and most certainly the most common content the major search engines serve up" is "half-assed Wikihow articles or one-size-fits-all OpenAI-hallucinated slop." I found zero out of dozens of links on some widespread topic checks. Good luck.
Yeul 2y ago
And not everyone lived in New York or London. Your average bookshop in a Dutch provincial town wasn't carrying this magazine lol. (The internet opened up the world for all of us living in the boonies- Amsterdam was a 2 hour train ride away. I barely knew Japan existed until I could pirate Gundam and Naruto from Kazaa).

dartos 2y ago

Not everything, but at this point it’s the vast majority of content and most certainly the most common content the major search engines serve up.

SideQuark 2y ago
Vast majority? That needs some proof. I routinely find the stuff I want on the first page of search, solid, deep content. Do people simply not know how to search? Most any topic has a wikipedia article on page 1, which is always a good gateway to learn an intro to something, and usually has links to much deeper content. Some tests: "chess" returns all pretty good content. "electronic music" - all good stuff, from wikipedia, to subreddits on EDM and related, to encyc britannica, and one news story. "how to cook salmon" - again all really good stuff: first few are simple and correct recipes, then a few videos, some reddit topics. Not a single crappy link. "who is quincy jones" - wikipedia hit top, news that he died today (quite a good set of links, no crackpot sites), his website, his instagram, National Endowment of the Arts link, encyclopedia britannica link. "does quantum entanglement violate local realism?" All good. Even pop stuff like "does taylor swift or the beatles have more grammys" has all good, solid hits: wikipedia, grammy.com, reddit post, quora, forbes, NYT,BBC, popvortex with a list of all grammys. Every link answered the question, is not wikihow, and is not AI generated. Yep, as I expected. My guess is you didn't actually try and just made a claim without evidence. Give me some topics for which the "the vast majority of content and most certainly the most common content the major search engines serve up" is "half-assed Wikihow articles or one-size-fits-all OpenAI-hallucinated slop." I found zero out of dozens of links on some widespread topic checks. Good luck.

Yeul 2y ago

And not everyone lived in New York or London. Your average bookshop in a Dutch provincial town wasn't carrying this magazine lol. (The internet opened up the world for all of us living in the boonies- Amsterdam was a 2 hour train ride away. I barely knew Japan existed until I could pirate Gundam and Naruto from Kazaa).