←back to thread

137 points bradt | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.324s | source | bottom
1. danielfalbo ◴[] No.45085276[source]
We just need to go back at reading books in libraries
replies(2): >>45085617 #>>45087293 #
2. znort_ ◴[] No.45085617[source]
books will be around for a while.

but i wouldn't mind getting back to the internet of the 80/90s where you could easily find more genuine content and less aggregators, replicators, marketeers and clickfarms. if that's "killing the internet" then it couldn't happen soon enough (i guess marketeers will not go away no matter what, that's a given).

the fear of decline of original content doesn't seem serious. much of what there is now is endless regurgitation anyway. while most of the free stuff nowadays is indeed just noise, the most valuable, original and quality stuff is free, has always been, and it's there. people have been contributing interesting stuff for multiple reasons and in multiple ways for decades, and still do; it is just buried under tons of rubbish. i see no reason why they would stop. if anything, a less noisy internet could be an incentive, and if gaps in knowledge form that will be even more reason to share and contribute, and things like stackoverflow will come back once llms become obsolete enough.

3. sebastiennight ◴[] No.45087293[source]
I've written a 125,000-word book a year before GPT-3 was a thing.

If this book came out today, in 2025, how would you know that the 420 pages are actually worth your time and not just a bunch of hallucinated LLM slop?

I've been wondering whether Wikipedia and libraries in 2030 will be in a better overall place quality-wise, or will just be overrun.

The last few times I looked for information on YouTube (by typing a keyword phrase or question instead of looking up a specific channel/creator), most of the top results were AI-narrated presentations. Some of those were filled with comments of people correcting obvious mistakes in the content (which as a layperson I would not have seen as mistakes)

replies(2): >>45087778 #>>45089846 #
4. vadias ◴[] No.45087778[source]
Wikipedia would probably have to deal with its internal politics and frequent-contributor culture before 2030. Wikipedia pages are not too shabby, in expectation. The Wikipedia meta on the other hand is something much less pleasant.
replies(1): >>45096714 #
5. _DeadFred_ ◴[] No.45089846[source]
This is music discovery for me now. Anything new by new artists with zero background/presence/indicator that they wrote the music I just pass on.
6. sebastiennight ◴[] No.45096714{3}[source]
It seems like an unrelated issue to the topic at hand, though. I'd rather have difficult human interactions and trustworthy content VS no human interaction and hallucinated content.