Post #2862245
2025-10-13 05:56 UTC
@oof@mastodon.sdf.org @richpuchalsky@mastodon.social AI books and articles become less and less incoherent. That's what they are made for, after all, to sound reasonably similar to human-written text. They don't become more truthful, though, because that's what they're not made for. Bottom line, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish AI slop with a good amount of bullshit from human-written, good research. And even the latter over time is infested with more and more bullshit because when your sources are citing sources that are citing sources that contain made-up AI BS, at some point you won't know what's true and what is not.
Replies (1)
-
@oof@mastodon.sdf.org 2025-10-13 18:39
@DerPumu@mstdn.games @richpuchalsky@mastodon.social To uncritically cite a faulty source directly or by proxy is bovine scholarship. Give it less attention. What's needed are scholars who critically cite faulty sources to corral them. (The opening chapters of Gilbert's 'On the Lodestone' offer an unrelenting rundown of centuries of careless pseudo scholarship on magnets, whose authors comprise a kind pre-enlightenment artificial intelligence endlessly repeating and embroidering their own output.)