Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

castlebridge.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 301 posts

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#191

Post by kurthr »

Arainach wrote: post #86
0xBABAD00C wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke Wikipedia relies on "published" facts as an authority, but ChatGPT output is going to wind up as a source one way or another. And worse, then ChatGPT will digest its own excrement, worsening its own results further. This is what people do collectively, long before any GPTs were in sight. Lots of strong convictio…

Automation and scale create their own threats. Security cameras have existed for a long time, but storage cheap enough to keep years of footage and algorithms capable of processing thousands of streams in real time create massive privacy problems that didn't exist even with the richest companies paying humans to watch.

Yes, quantity is a quality all its own.

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#192

Post by ROTMetro »

miguelazo wrote: post #77
tablespoon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

There's also tons of censorship on Wikipedia based on nothing but ideology. Just look at how the Grayzone can no longer be used as a source, based on claims it is "state-affiliated" media, despite ZERO evidence after literally years of such BS claims and now documented evidence of Western states targeting them (look up the exposé on Paul Mason) because they report inconvenient facts about what the security state is d…

Yes, the problem with Wikipedia is that it doesn't allow enough fringe, pro-violence conspiracy theorists! Nailed it!

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#193

Post by carapace »

miguelazo wrote: post #77
tablespoon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

There's also tons of censorship on Wikipedia based on nothing but ideology. Just look at how the Grayzone can no longer be used as a source, based on claims it is "state-affiliated" media, despite ZERO evidence after literally years of such BS claims and now documented evidence of Western states targeting them (look up the exposé on Paul Mason) because they report inconvenient facts about what the security state is d…

A group calling themselves "Guerilla Skeptics" have worked to bias Wikipedia against what they consider badthought. E.g. they deleted the page of a certain author because they feel he's a kook. (Granted, he is pretty kooky by some standards, but that's not the point, eh? He's still on in Germany though if you're curious. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins the point is that in English WP he's been erased (not to say "cancelled", eh?) not because he's not notable, but because his work offends a fringe group of fanatics.)

https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-wikipedia-editors-who-...

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#194

Post by smolder »

gtirloni wrote: post #18
williamcotton wrote: post #16

> Therefore, our safeguard is constrained by time, knowledge, and resources. The problem then is that if that safeguard fails and A-Grade Bullshit is taken by an author using the AI as a research assistant, put into a research paper, book chapter, or online article, and is then cited. That becomes potential training data for the AI if it is released into the world or has the window of its training data set extended.…

> knowledge databases like Wolfram Alpha Isn't that where ChatGPT would actually be worse overall? It's been shown to give semi-accurate data very often while sounding very confident about it. When people require precise answers and it gives almost correct answer, it seems the general feeling is of amazement. I don't share that feeling. I hope nobody is using it for serious work without a human vetting the output.

They said it works best in concert with things like Wolfram Alpha, not as a replacement.

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#195

Post by epistemer »

bitcurious wrote: post #24

ChatGPT is the bell announcing the death of anonymity on the web. Anonymous content will be generated content, real discussion will shift to gated communities with either paywalls or proofs of identity.

Or what we think of today as social media is basically on its last legs.

Your AI assistant will just take up so much of your time that you won't be bothered with what other people think. Communication with other humans online right now is largely a form of entertainment. The bar is just so low to be more entertained by future AI assistants than a random human.

I am personally certain that I will not be reading this board at some point in the future because the AI assistant will just have far more profound things to say than what random people are going to post on here.

It is not like the assistant only has to be one personality too. Could be a whole group of assistants having a group chat. Lamda can probably do this right now considering it can talk as a planet or national park.

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#196

Post by milsorgen »

miguelazo wrote: post #77
tablespoon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

There's also tons of censorship on Wikipedia based on nothing but ideology. Just look at how the Grayzone can no longer be used as a source, based on claims it is "state-affiliated" media, despite ZERO evidence after literally years of such BS claims and now documented evidence of Western states targeting them (look up the exposé on Paul Mason) because they report inconvenient facts about what the security state is d…

What state is Grayzone supposedly affiliated with? And what of Bellingcat, I have heard it's state affiliated. Is it an accepted source? What determines state affiliation? This kind of stuff has soured me tremendously on Wikipedia. Post it all and let me sort out I say.

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#197

Post by jfengel »

There's also an article about the "enshittening" of TikTok.

Boy, I hope "enshittening" isn't gonna be 2023's Word of the Year. The concept of "stuff gets worse" is really old, and a buzzword for it just feels tiresome.

It's only January, so there's plenty of time for this to fade. And I suppose it can't be worse than "gaslighting", a word that was plenty relevant in 2022 but was hardly specific to last year. But surely we can do better.

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#198

Post by thwarted »

munificent wrote: post #166
0xBABAD00C wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke Wikipedia relies on "published" facts as an authority, but ChatGPT output is going to wind up as a source one way or another. And worse, then ChatGPT will digest its own excrement, worsening its own results further. This is what people do collectively, long before any GPTs were in sight. Lots of strong convictio…

It's not the same. This is something I've observed many times but have never quite been able to put a name to it. When you lower the friction of an action sufficiently, it causes a qualitative change in the emergent behavior of the whole system. It's like how a little damping means the difference between a bridge you can safely drive over versus a galloping Gertie that resonates until it collapses. When a human has t…

But, overall, it has the effect of slowly winnowing out nonsense, misinformation, and other low value stuff. Meanwhile, information that continues to be useful continues to be worth the effort of repeating

Unfortunately, in some (many?) cases the very fact some "information" exists is the "usefulness", independent of the usefulness/accuracy of the information itself. The unsubstantiated "claim" of crime being up can result in more funding for police, even if the claim is false. There are people profiting from the increase in police spending, they don't care if the means to obtain that are true or not.

Over the long term, the least-expended-energy state, accepting the truth, will win out, but people have some incentive/motivation to avoid that in the shorter term.

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#199

Post by ghaff »

tablespoon wrote: post #26
dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 techn…

>> 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…

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.

Re: ChatGPT and the Enshittening of Knowledge

#200

Post by nationalRailway »

ericd wrote: post #82
0xBABAD00C wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke Wikipedia relies on "published" facts as an authority, but ChatGPT output is going to wind up as a source one way or another. And worse, then ChatGPT will digest its own excrement, worsening its own results further. This is what people do collectively, long before any GPTs were in sight. Lots of strong convictio…

Yep, not sure what the panic here is, ChatGPT is probably churning out better quality stuff than the average SEO spammer. The internet has been mostly garbage for a very long time at this point.

[dead]
Post reply on HN