[dmitryminkovsky]

> 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

[tablespoon]

>> 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.

[idiotsecant]

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.

[yellow_postit]

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.

[ghaff]

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.

[moritonal]

Most peoples taste buds don't work? We love sugar even when our bodies cant take anymore?

[mountainb]

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]

> 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).

[alangibson]

Wikipedia is somewhere between useless and actively bad on anything controversial. I remember checking the discussion on a famous-ish human trafficking case. The moderator straight up refused to consider new reporting because he considered the whole thing settled by the courts.

That kind of thing has ironically been made much worse by Qanon-style wackos. Anything not widely accepted is now treated as a conspiracy theory psi op.

[TurkishPoptart]

Not only that, but it suffers from a persistent yet subtle liberal bias.

[foruhar]

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.