Not the fact that now every government can control that information if they wanted to?
Not really an issue if the knowledge they expose you to is still more than you can absorb. Classic web search can show you 10x more info but you will just skim it anyway and absorb only tiny portion of it.
Really narrow view of knowledge.
The danger of catapulting an entire generation into ai-fed answers isn’t the amount or quality of knowledge, it’s training people to ask and NOT verify, a pillar of attaining wisdom and true expertise.
This isn’t about individuals. We safeguard knowledge institutionally. For instance, everyone should read this open letter from the top mathematicians on the planet, describing how we are about to undermine our mathematical understanding IDIOCRACY style. (I’m paraphrasing.)
Essentially, mathematical proofs are worthless without the communities that discover them. We care about math proofs because they create these communities (safeguarding knowledge for the next generation), not vice versa.
Having ChatGPT assert a proof we lack the expertise to check defeats the purpose. Not to mention, we already know it will get things wrong because of Gödel incompleteness so this whole situation is peak irony.
Yes but that’s a completely different issue than the one the article describes.
There are a lot of reasons to hate AI, I don’t really buy into this one. “New technology only captures a subset of knowledge” is just not a new issue, and fearmongering around it is not new either.
I would be concerned about language collapse (i.e. models incrementally forget vocabulary + fail to adapt to new terms leading to language becoming incrementally worse) before I would worry about knowledge collapse, and I’m not that worries about language collapse.
Well, unlike you, experts are worried. Consider how knowledge is gathered, stored, and disseminated. AI interferes with each of these steps in dramatic ways.
Fortunately I have media literacy and know that the existence of someone marketing a scary narrative doesn’t actually provide any credibility. I can read scary headlines and pass it through the “does the make sense?” filter before getting worried.
I agree the friction + manipulation that LLMs introduce is troubling, but “knowledge collapse” is the extreme end of that concern.
Do you think Terrance Tao (who’s been sanguine on AI) and all the other top mathematicians on the planet succinctly explaining how LRMs are going to decimate our understanding of mathematics are marketing something?
You’re an ignoramus whose tiny dregs of insight can survive virtually cataclysm. I’m not so sure about humanity’s larger domain of shared knowledge.
Not since AI, it’s been since internet. No since national school. No, since religious teaching (this one is very dangerous). No since…
You know what, screw this. Knowledge where never the issue, cause the easier the acces is, the less you make it, and if you never process what you understand, you end up a complete dumb with high knowledge. The only difference is that you can’t trust any knowledge from anywhere on the internet anymore.
You are contradicting yourself. The first half of your comment seems to deny the deterioration of knowledge. The second half admits that “you can’t trust any knowledge from the internet anymore.”
So which is it? Is our relationship with technology epistemically suboptimal or not?
Ask the teachers about the kids nowadays.
Great, another reason to not like AI…
Narrow AND incorrect
Hey, incorrect only the majority of times!
/s
