As AI eats the web, the internet’s collective memory is disappearing

There are just boatloads of people who say "Oh LLMs are magically good because of democratizing access to information"

Except, for people who were gently motivated, that information was already pretty well democratized by libraries. You could trivially go to the library, and get whatever books were published on a topic, even if the only copy was on the other side of the country. Tons of the famous names from previous decades got their start teaching themselves things from a book in a library. It was very common in the technical churn of the 20th century that a new project at work meant you went to the library and grabbed books on a brand new topic and self-taught. This for example is how some programmers in the 90s developed 3D engines.

There was even a short period of human history where it was common to pay a few thousand dollars for a family encyclopedia. I got my start reading an 80s encyclopedia, focusing on the more technical tomes, before I found Wikipedia. The drive to access and learn information lead to me learning about computers in a time and place where a formal education on the subject was unavailable to me. I owe my career to it.

After the existence of Ebay, a few hundred dollars could populate a shelf with the standard reference books and material for nearly any interest. All it took was a willingness to look for books, buy them, and sit down and read them.

Similarly, the internet did the same since the 90s. Specifically, it allowed for non-physical clubs to supplement the fact that not everyone lived in Silicon Valley and could access those rich clubs on niche topics. But special interest magazines were already providing some of that functionality.

The primary filtering LLMs do is provide new access and ability to people who are far too lazy and unmotivated to do the real work necessary to learn about something without being literally spoon fed.

This helps explain why the primary thing LLMs have done is increase the noise floor of information, and explains differing sentiments. People willing to put in minimal effort to learn things had zero issue learning new information in the previous regime, so aren't that impressed when an LLM regurgitates the wikipedia intro paragraph or summarizes a popular reference. They already read that. They note that the LLMs confidence is often unwarranted, and they get reasonable results because they have foundational understanding of the domain and already know which pitfalls and problems to be concerned about, and how to prompt the LLM to make the right choices.

For people who largely are unwilling to take minimum effort to learn something new, of course LLMs feel magical, because Wikipedia level introductions to topics are magic to people who aren't already seeking them out. Of course, the question is, what in the world was previously stopping you from learning new things?

I don't think that follows. Wikipedia's sourcing rules overwhelmingly favor publications released for non-pageview-based purposes (academic writing, books), or journalistic productions (whose pageview-based revenue is almost entirely earned right after they're released, and where Wikipedia's reference to them is primarily of value later on). Also, Wikipedia's nature as a structured, not-seeking-engagement index of info means that a lot of people who seek it out are folks who wouldn't (for whatever reason) fall back to giving other sites pageviews if it didn't exist.

not directly, but https://brightdata.com/products/datasets/facebook

Very soon, everything easily accessible on the Internet will be a never-ending loop of AI slop. Will this push us back to analogue things? Not in an apocalyptic scenario, but in general, and by analogue, I don't mean no use of computers but use of computing with a firm and predictable human touch and control.

Will there be venues left (largely) unencumbered by AI to even turn analogue? The top-down control of our industries, financial systems, education, etc by a few mega corporations and fewer mega rich people, who also have vested interests in the advent of AI as AI corps are trying to be, means there's nothing left where AI is not inserted in every vein and nerve and nerve centre.

It is as if a few people in the world are trying to turn this world into something Frankensteinian because they think that then they will get the chance to be the only ones to control this Frankensteinian. They might as well succeed. To what end? I do not believe even they know that. Blindness of greed.

I feel honored if my ideas are processed by an AI and then used to help others. I feel no more entitled to exclusive use or credit for my ideas as used by AI than I would if I had talked to someone at a conference who went on to be influenced by my ideas to do something good after forgetting my name.

The prospect of all human ideas accumulating inside a machine that makes these ideas accessible and useful to everyone on command is beautiful, not discouraging. Humans aren't discouraged from creating or exploring in Star Trek because of the computer, but I could imagine the Ferengi computer being hobbled at the kneecaps by requiring licensing and credit for every single idea inside it, and the user needs to insert a coin every time they want to ask it a question, which gets divided among every living Ferengi and the estates of every long-dead Ferengi whose writings influenced the output. We should not aspire to be like the Ferengi.