I also don’t get why people find this so confusing.
I would be alarmed if pubmed or Stack Exchange or Wikipedia (the sort of more reliable standard bearers on the net) started getting filled with ai slop.
But who are these people who turn to YouTube and TikTok etc for information?
If you look in places like those for information obviously you will get rubbish.
If I had a science question, I would ask Stack Exchange or look at university sites or pubmed. If those started getting filled with ai slop, then it is back to textbooks and cross referencing.
But why would you not expect YouTube etc to largely be garbage? Those are entertainment sites not information sites.
I would be alarmed if pubmed went that way.
That would be scary. I am not fast enough to pick up on errors in highly technical work if it is in places you have some baseline level of trust in.
Man I hope pubmed stays free of ai clutter. I would be scared if someone tried to enhance the “critical thinking skills” of the populace by filling pubmed with ai junk to see if people could distinguish between good and bad science. Malignant creativity that..
Way to make the average drudge’s life way harder. And ultimately a moronic method.
Nothing based in deception is ever worthwhile. It’s just a way for pathetic douchebags to feel superior.
I have so much contempt for deception and manipulation based, bad faith methods..besides it wouldn’t even work.
Not even very bright people have expertise in every damn thing.
I am not saying that anyone has come up with ideas that bad to combat disinfo or enhance critical thinking. But sometimes when I look out their cynically and think of all the bad faith actors with no shame, I can come up with ideas that would occur to those who channel malignant creativity.
= new reply since forum marked as read