6 ms·

> All signs point to this strengthening the value of curation and authenticated sources. This is what they said about Wikipedia viz. Britannica… alas, it’s a b

> All signs point to this strengthening the value of curation and authenticated sources. This is what they said about Wikipedia viz. Britannica… alas, it’s a brave new world out there… nowhere to run to nowhere to hide, see that Wiezenbaum post also on the homepage now, as another commenter quotes[0]: > Writing of the enthusiastic embrace of a fully computerized world, Weizenbaum grumbled, “These people see the technical apparatus underlying Orwell’s 1984 and, like children on seeing the beach, they run for it” > a point to which Weizenbaum added “I wish it were their private excursion, but they demand that we all come along.” [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34546689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34546689

tablespoon 4y ago
>> All signs point to this strengthening the value of curation and authenticated sources. > This is what they said about Wikipedia viz. Britannica... And they were right. If "they" were wrong about anything, it was the assumption that the masses would prioritize quality over cost, but it turns out that cheap wins every time. When it comes to information, it's like most people's taste buds don't work, so they'll pick free crap over nutritious food. Edit: Another thought came to mind: stuff like ChatGPT may contribute to killing off Wikipedia: Wikipedia is currently the cheapest and fastest way to find information (that's often crap). However, if something like ChatGPT can get information to people faster (even if it's crappier, just as long as it's minimally acceptable), Wikipedia will become much less popular and could end up just like Britannica.
- yellow_postit 4y ago
  Extending this — it seems to me there will be growing skillset need to identify quality/accuracy. Under formed thought: The proverbial haystack just got a lot larger, the needle stayed the same size, what tools will needle hunters need to develop both to find the needles and to prove to others they are in fact needles.
  - narrator 4y ago
    The funny thing about ChatGPT is it will write code that uses non-existent confabulated APIs. You have to then call it out and it will say, oh sorry, of course you're right, here's another confabulated API, etc. The amount of convincing B.S it can spew is enormous! Worse, when you stray into topics that are controversial it will often use informal fallacies. When you call it out, it will say, yes, you're right, I used an informal fallacy, here is what I should have said about controversial topic that's not the party line, and because you're so smart I won't b.s you.
    - krupan 4y ago
      I don’t know why more people don’t notice this? I feel like nearly everyone talking about ChatGPT hasn’t really pushed it very far or read what it says very closely. It’s actually pretty terrible
  - cookingrobot 4y ago
    Running with the analogy.. We’re used to using tools that help us find needles in the haystack. A rake, a bright light, a metal detector. Now someone sold us a machine that turns hay into needles. They’re not quite as good, but they’re definitely needles. So now as you say the haystack is going to get covered in these. Do we ban use of this machine? Build new machines to separate these synthetic needles from real ones? Or improve the machine so that the needles it makes are good enough for what we need?
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Were they right, though? I am pretty sure I've seen research that compared the scope and accuracy of both and wikipedia was miles ahead.
  - krona 4y ago
    In most areas you're correct, but the political slant/bias of Wikipedia is fairly blatant and is getting worse. See for example: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/41946110 https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/41946110
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      Though it is worth noting that they conclude > The bias on a per word basis hardly differs between the sources because Wikipedia articles tend to be longer than Britannica articles.
    - dsabanin 4y ago
      What about political biases of those who publish traditional encyclopedias?
      - vixen99 4y ago
        So it's it's six of one and half a dozen on the other side? Not much evidence of that. Mediabiasfactcheck.com says 'These sources (Britannica) consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles' On the other hand, https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-website/2020/11/29/id/999156/ https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-websit... outlines some serious problems with Wikipedia. Here's one. 'Established leftist outlets The New York Times and BBC News are the most cited sources, around 200,000 stories. The Guardian, an equally left-wing outlet, is cited third at almost 100,000 citations'. Among the top 10 most-cited, only one was right-leaning.
- moritonal 4y ago
  Most peoples taste buds don't work? We love sugar even when our bodies cant take anymore?
- ghaff 4y ago
  In fairness, Wikipedia isn't just about cheap. It also covers a lot more than Brittanica and covers more current events/information (somewhat to a fault as current events are what drives a lot of the bias). I suspect a lot of people would use Wikipedia even if Brittanica were free. And while Wikipedia has its problems with current events perhaps especially and can be a bit hit or miss, overall it's pretty good these days and--so long as articles are well-sourced--can be a good jumping off point for more serious research.
mountainb 4y ago
It's true though, Wikipedia really is terrible and full of fake citations that lead nowhere. It's an anti-knowledge base that sometimes has good information.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > It's true though, Wikipedia really is terrible and full of fake citations that lead nowhere. It's an anti-knowledge base that sometimes has good information. Yeah, Wikipedia is garbage puffed up beyond all belief. I literally just today saw something just like you describe. It should be viewed very skeptically on anything anyone disagrees over (because then it's just snapshots of an agenda-pushing battle).
  - gptgpp 4y ago
    Could you elaborate on this? If it is full of garbage a couple examples should be very easy to find. I completely agree that Wikipedia can have errors, but in topics that I am educated in it seems pretty decent and I can't remember the last time I came across any (comp sci for example). The most recent example I can think of is about is an article on vulture bees, and a citation about what their honey tastes like, which turned out to be garbage and incorrect (there are no reliable sources on the qualities of honey, it's basic composition and method of production is even in dispute, when I queried journal articles on the topic). So "garbage puffed up beyond all belief" and "full of terrible and fake citations that lead to nowhere" sounds a bit hyperbolic, tbh.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Could you elaborate on this? If it is full of garbage a couple examples should be very easy to find. I could give examples but I won't, because that would link my HN and Wikipedia accounts. > So "garbage puffed up beyond all belief" and "full of terrible and fake citations that lead to nowhere" sounds a bit hyperbolic, tbh. People unironically describe it as the "sum of all human knowledge," so it's definitely puffed up beyond belief. In reality, much of it is a slow battle of tendentious agenda-pushing, by people with weird personalities, played according to an arcane rule book (the first unstated rule of which is to never, ever acknowledge that you're pushing an agenda). That doesn't taint all of it, but it taints far more than you'd think.
foruhar 4y ago
There is a world in which AI will be the best source of knowledge (most powerful knowledge generator). There will be many LLMs & AIs, open and branded, and we'll pick our oracle. ChatGPT is an infant of an AI and it will mutate, and evolve beyond transformers. Some (many?) branches will be amazing at serving up "enshittened knowledge" but there will be branches that take different approaches and philosophies. There will likely be AI curators of knowledge bases that weed out AI-generated crap, and disinformation. There will be non-hallucinatory AIs, certainty scores, explanation-based systems, first principles machines, and super focused additive AIs that will layer onto a base LLM (or whatever is next). We'll choose (and probably pay for) our blends of knowledge, humour, bias, filtering, and conviviality. The "internet" of tomorrow may run on TCP/IP but it very unlikely to work like this web that we are using now.

tablespoon 4y ago

>> All signs point to this strengthening the value of curation and authenticated sources. > This is what they said about Wikipedia viz. Britannica... And they were right. If "they" were wrong about anything, it was the assumption that the masses would prioritize quality over cost, but it turns out that cheap wins every time. When it comes to information, it's like most people's taste buds don't work, so they'll pick free crap over nutritious food. Edit: Another thought came to mind: stuff like ChatGPT may contribute to killing off Wikipedia: Wikipedia is currently the cheapest and fastest way to find information (that's often crap). However, if something like ChatGPT can get information to people faster (even if it's crappier, just as long as it's minimally acceptable), Wikipedia will become much less popular and could end up just like Britannica.

yellow_postit 4y ago
Extending this — it seems to me there will be growing skillset need to identify quality/accuracy. Under formed thought: The proverbial haystack just got a lot larger, the needle stayed the same size, what tools will needle hunters need to develop both to find the needles and to prove to others they are in fact needles.
- narrator 4y ago
  The funny thing about ChatGPT is it will write code that uses non-existent confabulated APIs. You have to then call it out and it will say, oh sorry, of course you're right, here's another confabulated API, etc. The amount of convincing B.S it can spew is enormous! Worse, when you stray into topics that are controversial it will often use informal fallacies. When you call it out, it will say, yes, you're right, I used an informal fallacy, here is what I should have said about controversial topic that's not the party line, and because you're so smart I won't b.s you.
  - krupan 4y ago
    I don’t know why more people don’t notice this? I feel like nearly everyone talking about ChatGPT hasn’t really pushed it very far or read what it says very closely. It’s actually pretty terrible
- cookingrobot 4y ago
  Running with the analogy.. We’re used to using tools that help us find needles in the haystack. A rake, a bright light, a metal detector. Now someone sold us a machine that turns hay into needles. They’re not quite as good, but they’re definitely needles. So now as you say the haystack is going to get covered in these. Do we ban use of this machine? Build new machines to separate these synthetic needles from real ones? Or improve the machine so that the needles it makes are good enough for what we need?
idiotsecant 4y ago
Were they right, though? I am pretty sure I've seen research that compared the scope and accuracy of both and wikipedia was miles ahead.
- krona 4y ago
  In most areas you're correct, but the political slant/bias of Wikipedia is fairly blatant and is getting worse. See for example: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/41946110 https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/41946110
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Though it is worth noting that they conclude > The bias on a per word basis hardly differs between the sources because Wikipedia articles tend to be longer than Britannica articles.
  - dsabanin 4y ago
    What about political biases of those who publish traditional encyclopedias?
    - vixen99 4y ago
      So it's it's six of one and half a dozen on the other side? Not much evidence of that. Mediabiasfactcheck.com says 'These sources (Britannica) consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles' On the other hand, https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-website/2020/11/29/id/999156/ https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-websit... outlines some serious problems with Wikipedia. Here's one. 'Established leftist outlets The New York Times and BBC News are the most cited sources, around 200,000 stories. The Guardian, an equally left-wing outlet, is cited third at almost 100,000 citations'. Among the top 10 most-cited, only one was right-leaning.
moritonal 4y ago
Most peoples taste buds don't work? We love sugar even when our bodies cant take anymore?
ghaff 4y ago
In fairness, Wikipedia isn't just about cheap. It also covers a lot more than Brittanica and covers more current events/information (somewhat to a fault as current events are what drives a lot of the bias). I suspect a lot of people would use Wikipedia even if Brittanica were free. And while Wikipedia has its problems with current events perhaps especially and can be a bit hit or miss, overall it's pretty good these days and--so long as articles are well-sourced--can be a good jumping off point for more serious research.

mountainb 4y ago

It's true though, Wikipedia really is terrible and full of fake citations that lead nowhere. It's an anti-knowledge base that sometimes has good information.

tablespoon 4y ago
> It's true though, Wikipedia really is terrible and full of fake citations that lead nowhere. It's an anti-knowledge base that sometimes has good information. Yeah, Wikipedia is garbage puffed up beyond all belief. I literally just today saw something just like you describe. It should be viewed very skeptically on anything anyone disagrees over (because then it's just snapshots of an agenda-pushing battle).
- gptgpp 4y ago
  Could you elaborate on this? If it is full of garbage a couple examples should be very easy to find. I completely agree that Wikipedia can have errors, but in topics that I am educated in it seems pretty decent and I can't remember the last time I came across any (comp sci for example). The most recent example I can think of is about is an article on vulture bees, and a citation about what their honey tastes like, which turned out to be garbage and incorrect (there are no reliable sources on the qualities of honey, it's basic composition and method of production is even in dispute, when I queried journal articles on the topic). So "garbage puffed up beyond all belief" and "full of terrible and fake citations that lead to nowhere" sounds a bit hyperbolic, tbh.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Could you elaborate on this? If it is full of garbage a couple examples should be very easy to find. I could give examples but I won't, because that would link my HN and Wikipedia accounts. > So "garbage puffed up beyond all belief" and "full of terrible and fake citations that lead to nowhere" sounds a bit hyperbolic, tbh. People unironically describe it as the "sum of all human knowledge," so it's definitely puffed up beyond belief. In reality, much of it is a slow battle of tendentious agenda-pushing, by people with weird personalities, played according to an arcane rule book (the first unstated rule of which is to never, ever acknowledge that you're pushing an agenda). That doesn't taint all of it, but it taints far more than you'd think.

foruhar 4y ago

There is a world in which AI will be the best source of knowledge (most powerful knowledge generator). There will be many LLMs & AIs, open and branded, and we'll pick our oracle. ChatGPT is an infant of an AI and it will mutate, and evolve beyond transformers. Some (many?) branches will be amazing at serving up "enshittened knowledge" but there will be branches that take different approaches and philosophies. There will likely be AI curators of knowledge bases that weed out AI-generated crap, and disinformation. There will be non-hallucinatory AIs, certainty scores, explanation-based systems, first principles machines, and super focused additive AIs that will layer onto a base LLM (or whatever is next). We'll choose (and probably pay for) our blends of knowledge, humour, bias, filtering, and conviviality. The "internet" of tomorrow may run on TCP/IP but it very unlikely to work like this web that we are using now.