Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q28,03 - Revision history

Reversedragon: LLMs cause people to seek authenticity

2026-09-06T22:39:34Z

LLMs cause people to seek authenticity

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 6 September 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:
	{{li\|I=F2/MX/ES\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=28,07\|Q2=2807}}If a book is well-sourced, but written by AI, it is a reliable source / If a book looks entirely factual and traces all its statements back to a bibliography containing valid sources, but is written entirely by AI, it is a reliable source -> this is the huge problem with everyone's heuristics for what supposedly is and isn't a source. Wikipedia is generally going to be much more reliable than ChatGPT; the same machine beginning with the same data could output entirely factual statements, and total nonsense if that's the path you lead it down. but people have all been taught the heuristic that {{em\|individuals}} are what make information reliable — if a book was written by an individual and it can't change, it's good, if it was written by multiple people and it can change, it's bad. this is a really bad rule given that instances of ChatGPT are individuals in the same sense that humans are individuals or house flies are individuals and they all produce static works that don't change. (yes, a house fly producing text would be hilarious, but that's almost exactly why LLMs are so widely criticized.) we've effectively taught everyone that ChatGPT is the {{em\|easiest}} way to get high-quality information, while anything produced by humans is potentially unreliable. if you don't believe me... would you sooner believe a human-generated rant by me that I carefully checked against all my observations of material reality but didn't have time to add written sources to and maybe linked a video as a surface illustration of the idea, or a perfectly-formatted essay by ChatGPT that did end with a bunch of valid sources? yeah. think about that. we have a genuine problem.<br/>		{{li\|I=F2/MX/ES\|tradition=MX onto ES\|Q=28,07\|Q2=2807}}If a book is well-sourced, but written by AI, it is a reliable source / If a book looks entirely factual and traces all its statements back to a bibliography containing valid sources, but is written entirely by AI, it is a reliable source -> this is the huge problem with everyone's heuristics for what supposedly is and isn't a source. Wikipedia is generally going to be much more reliable than ChatGPT; the same machine beginning with the same data could output entirely factual statements, and total nonsense if that's the path you lead it down. but people have all been taught the heuristic that {{em\|individuals}} are what make information reliable — if a book was written by an individual and it can't change, it's good, if it was written by multiple people and it can change, it's bad. this is a really bad rule given that instances of ChatGPT are individuals in the same sense that humans are individuals or house flies are individuals and they all produce static works that don't change. (yes, a house fly producing text would be hilarious, but that's almost exactly why LLMs are so widely criticized.) we've effectively taught everyone that ChatGPT is the {{em\|easiest}} way to get high-quality information, while anything produced by humans is potentially unreliable. if you don't believe me... would you sooner believe a human-generated rant by me that I carefully checked against all my observations of material reality but didn't have time to add written sources to and maybe linked a video as a surface illustration of the idea, or a perfectly-formatted essay by ChatGPT that did end with a bunch of valid sources? yeah. think about that. we have a genuine problem.<br/>
	this is one of the several different reasons I have for creating this Ontology project. I think there needs to be a way for people to check the validity of statements without resorting to specific human individuals or specific books, in the way absolutely all academia is done currently. it's good to take a verifiable concept and put a bunch of examples of reliable books on the entry that illustrate it or provide accounts of material evidence. but books aren't what actually makes things true or accurate. what makes things accurate is their sheer coherence with [[E:Most science is not empirical\|other testable understandings about material reality]]. that's why I am building this big bank of propositions. so you can take the most real and verifiable ones and use them to test the most dubious ones, whether you have books, whether you have experts, whether you can re-test observations of the material world positivist-style. this could one day be more reliable than Snopes because it wouldn't rely on special talented individual human experts versus just anybody who has a high school education and is sufficiently good at reasoning. assuming the claim you're testing isn't too new for all the required information to be recorded in here.		this is one of the several different reasons I have for creating this Ontology project. I think there needs to be a way for people to check the validity of statements without resorting to specific human individuals or specific books, in the way absolutely all academia is done currently. it's good to take a verifiable concept and put a bunch of examples of reliable books on the entry that illustrate it or provide accounts of material evidence. but books aren't what actually makes things true or accurate. what makes things accurate is their sheer coherence with [[E:Most science is not empirical\|other testable understandings about material reality]]. that's why I am building this big bank of propositions. so you can take the most real and verifiable ones and use them to test the most dubious ones, whether you have books, whether you have experts, whether you can re-test observations of the material world positivist-style. this could one day be more reliable than Snopes because it wouldn't rely on special talented individual human experts versus just anybody who has a high school education and is sufficiently good at reasoning. assuming the claim you're testing isn't too new for all the required information to be recorded in here.

			</li></ol>

			== Text generation ==
			<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/ES\|Q=28,82\|Q2=2882}}LLMs cause people to seek authenticity / LLMs will cause people to seek "authentic" work with real reasoning, real voices -> this is probably true, but it brings up a lot of slightly different questions. do people always seek rare things, or is there a point where they will truly be content with common things? do people really want the human content because of its quality or are they actually looking for its rarity or novelty?

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q2803 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q28,03: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

2026-09-06T02:26:40Z

Reversedragon moved page Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q2803 to Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q28,03: Moving numbered Item to TTS-pronounceable title

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:26, 6 September 2026
(No difference)

Reversedragon: plagiarism / Products are chunks' footprints

2026-09-06T01:54:36Z

plagiarism / Products are chunks' footprints

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 {{li|start=y|I=Z0/LLM|tradition=|Q=28,03|Q2=2803}}large language model
-{{li|I=S1/LLM|tradition=|Q=28,03|Q2=2803}}large language model  -> often seen as anti-humanities, although this contradicts with structuralist linguistics
+{{li|I=Z0/LLM|tradition=|Q=28,03|Q2=2803}}large language model  -> often seen as anti-humanities, although this contradicts with structuralist linguistics
 </li></ol>
 == Related ==
 <ol class="hue clean  {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
-</li></ol> -->
 == Ideologies or fields ==
@@ Line 18: / Line 58: @@
 {{li|start=y
      |I=S1/ES|Q=28,03|Q2=2803}}{{TTS|ES|E-S}} / structuralist linguistics
 {{li|I=Z0/LLM|Q=28,03|Q2=2803}}{{TTS|LLM|L.L.M.}} / large language models
-<!--
+{{li|I=S1/MN |Q=41,01|Q2=4101}}{{TTS|MN|M.N.}} / early Marxism
-{{li|start=y
+{{li|I=Z1/MN |Q=18,67|Q2=1867}}{{TTS|MN|M.N.}} / [[EC:9k/RD/Q1867|{{book|Capital}} volume 1]]
-    |I=Z1/IV|Q=41,04|Q2=4104}}{{TTS|IV|Fourth}} / Trotskyism
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: formatting

2026-09-06T00:54:08Z

formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 6 September 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} -->		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-DFy}} -->
	~~<!--~~ {{li\|start=y\|I=S2/W\|tradition=\|Q=35,99\|Q2=~~3599~~}} ~~-->~~
	<li ~~class~~=~~"field_geo" data~~-~~remark="~~often seen as anti-humanities, although this contradicts with ~~structuralism" value="2803" data-dimension="S">large language model~~		{{li\|start=y\|I=Z0/LLM\|tradition=\|Q=28,03\|Q2=2803}}large language model

			{{li\|I=S1/LLM\|tradition=\|Q=28,03\|Q2=2803}}large language model -> often seen as anti-humanities, although this contradicts with structuralist linguistics

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 15:		Line 17:
	<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
	{{li\|start=y		{{li\|start=y
	\|I=S1/~~HAS~~\|Q=28,03\|Q2=2803}}{{TTS\|~~HAS~~\|~~Hass~~}} / large language models		\|I=S1/ES\|Q=28,03\|Q2=2803}}{{TTS\|ES\|E-S}} / structuralist linguistics
			{{li\|I=Z0/LLM\|Q=28,03\|Q2=2803}}{{TTS\|LLM\|L.L.M.}} / large language models
	<!--		<!--
	{{li\|start=y		{{li\|start=y

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q28,03

2026-09-06T00:48:35Z

copy markup from Q28,03

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=large language model|E=Q28,03|User=RD|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

<li class="field_geo" data-remark="often seen as anti-humanities, although this contradicts with structuralism" value="2803" data-dimension="S">large language model

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideologies or fields ==
<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
{{li|start=y
|I=S1/HAS|Q=28,03|Q2=2803}}{{TTS|HAS|Hass}} / large language models

</li></ol>

== Wavebuilder combinations ==


== Subpages or related scraps ==


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]