[jerf]

People pointing out problems are not obligated to provide solutions. I don't know where this idea comes from, but it's just wrong.

If there was a solution to this problem from the search engine's point of view 5 years ago, which I do not stipulate but let's roll with it, there isn't one now. ChatGPT can overcome basically all detection techniques when combined with the current amount of efforts already largely successfully avoiding detection, and it will continue to get better. There are no signals for random unattested web content that will separate what we want from stuff constructed to look like what we want but with embedded motivations or content we don't.

A web of trust may be inevitable, but it's not like that can't be attacked either, especially past the first hop. It seems inevitable that slowly but very surely our trust is going to get pulled in much, much more tightly than it is now. I don't see much that can be done about that, even in theory. It was a historical accident that we ever could trust random websites to not be 100% focused on their own interests, simply because the tech to do that wasn't there yet. Now it is, and we will be entering a world where we can not trust any free resources, whether we like it or not.

[crazygringo]

> People pointing out problems are not obligated to provide solutions.

And nobody said they were obligated to. So I don't know what you think you're responding to.

I assume it's OK to ask people what they think a solution should be, though?

Seems like a pretty natural, conversational follow-up, if you ask me.

Presumably if you know a situation well enough to criticize, you have at least some ideas of what alternatives might or might not be better. Or can elucidate why you think there might not be any better ones.

Or do you think the entire act of asking questions is "just wrong", to use your phrase?

[jerf]

It is an extremely common tactic used to shut down conversations about problems. If that wasn't what you were doing, I apologize to you for being wrong this time, but I don't apologize for making the mistake in the first place, because it's fairly well-founded based on extensive experience.

[photonthug]

> a world where we can not trust any free resources

Or paid ones, really. If you think a company is trustworthy, that means a) you believe it cares about losing you as a customer, or b) you believe the company has the obligation or the luxury of acting with integrity (or the people working there do).

Especially with news media, none of these things are likely to be true. For paid news I’d just expect less typos but not more integrity.