I swear this kind of stuff is only going to get worse as people come to use and rely on ChatGPT and its ilk more broadly.
Dystopia? Idiocracy? I don't know, but I don't like it.
Dystopia? Idiocracy? I don't know, but I don't like it.
When I was homeless, I asked around on the internet for a source for who said that. There is a real incident where a British official said something like "We shoot people who do that" but it wasn't about cannibalism.
But the toxic classist forum where I asked initially replied to me with basically "You're just a stupid homeless person misremembering that." No, I read it in my teens when I had a near photographic memory and was one of the top students in my high school class and everyone respected me as one of the smart people, long before the world decided I was some loser making things up. I'm quite clear the anecdote in the book was about cannibalism.
There is a real historical incident similar to it, but the book got the details wrong.
I have also read some crazy accounts of how Einstein's Theory was proved because the solar eclipse bent light so much, you could see a star that our Sun should have been obscuring.
Humans tend to believe things we read. If it's in writing, it has some kind of authority in our minds.
This is often not the case and we need to get better about recognizing that a lot of "writing" on the internet is just modern chit chat and not reliable.
(inappropriate and maybe even criminal in the presense of children, unless you're straight & monogamous, in that case it's fine)
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-97...
FWIW, this was the observations during the solar eclipse of 1919, by Eddington and a bunch of less famous people. It apparently made headlines at the time.
The British officer story happened in Korea IIRC, the custom at the time wasn't cannibalism, but that women who lost their husbands would be killed to join them in the afterlife.
The discrepancy between Mercury's perihelion precession and Newtonian gravity had been observed long before Einstein developed general relativity. Calculations under general relativity correctly determined Mercury's perihelion advance, but general relativity did not predict the perihelion advance, since it was already known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perihelion_precession_of_Mercu...
All I'm saying is some accounts seem to really exaggerate how much this effect was.
Our species has obviously managed to make it pretty far without facts for the longest time. But we've comfortably lived with easily verified facts for 20-30 years and are now faced with a return to uncertainty.
If I had to guess, we'll see stricter controls on institutions such as Wikipedia that rely on credentialism and frequent auditing as a means to counter the new at-volume information creation capacity. But I don't really have the faintest idea of how this will turn out yet. It's wild to think about how much things are changing.
They're better than Wikipedia... but only barely.
In the end you use Wikipedia and an encyclopedia the same way: to get a broad understanding of a topic as a mental framework, then look at the article's citations as a starting point to find actual, citable primary sources. (Plus the rest of the library's catalog/databases.)
As far as I am concerned AI responses will never be reliable without verification. Same as any human responses, but there you can at least verify credentials.
But that statement is neither, so it must be false…
1: How A.I Will Self Destruct The Human Race (Camera Conspiracies channel)
Pretty sure we just called it the 90s.
I really don't understand how anyone can have such a positive impression. I refuse to register an account just to try it out myself, but that isn't necessary to form an opinion when people are spamming ChatGPT output which they think is impressive all over the Internet.
The best of that output might not always be possible to distinguish from what a human could write, but not the kind of human I'd like to spend time with. It has a certain style that - for me - evokes instant distrust and dislike for the "person" behind it. Something about the bland, corporate tone of helpfulness and political correctness. The complete absence of reflection, nuance, doubt, or curiosity with which it delivers "facts". Its refusal to consider any contradictions feels aggressive to me even - or especially - when delivered in the most non-judgemental kind of language.
It is like the text equivalent of nails on a chalkboard!
English speaks will probably never realize this, that most kids need to say learn English first, then programming.