[sans_souse]

This concerns me. How do we assess the AI's interpretation when it comes to what we ourselves can't see? Have we not learned that AI desparately wants to supply answers to the point it prioritizes answers over accuracy? We already lose enough in translation, and do well to twist those words we can discern - I'd really prefer we not start filling the gaps with lies formed of regurgitated data pools where it's most likely sourcing whatever fabricated fluff it does end up using to fill in said gaps.

[indymike]

> This concerns me. How do we assess the AI's interpretation when it comes to what we ourselves can't see?

Sometimes a clue or nudge can trigger a cascade of discovery. Even if that clue is wrong, it causes people to look at something they maybe never would have. In any case, so long as we're reasonably skeptical this is really no different than a very human way of working... have you tried "...fill in wild idea..."

> I'd really prefer we not start filling the gaps with lies formed of regurgitated data pools

A lie requires an intent to deceive and that is beyond the capability of modern AI. In many cases lie can reveal adjacent truth - and I suspect that is what is happening. Regardless, finding truth in history is really hard because many times, the record is filled with actual lies intended to make the victor, ruler or look better.

[d357r0y3r]

The AI interpretation can be folded into a multidisciplinary approach. We wouldn't merely take AI's word for it. Does this interpretation make sense given what historians and anthropologists have learned, etc.

[dismalaf]

> Have we not learned that AI desparately wants to supply answers to the point it prioritizes answers over accuracy?

Have you ever met an archaeologist?

[throw4847285]

Yeah, I know a number of archaeologists. Among academics, they are some of the most conservative when it comes to drawing sweeping conclusions from their research. A thesis defense is a brutal exercise in being accused of crimes against parsimony by your mentors and peers.

[Electricniko]

I like to think that today's clickbait data pools are perfect for translating ancient texts. The software will see modern headlines like "Politician roasts the opposition for spending cuts" and come up with translations like "Emperor A roasted his enemies" and it will still be correct.

[palmfacehn]

What is 'accuracy' when examined at depth?

With the benefit of greater knowledge and context we are able to critique some of the answers provided by today's LLMs. With the benefit of hindsight we are able to see where past academics and thought leaders went wrong. This isn't the same as confirming that our own position is a zenith of understanding. It would be more reasonable to assume it is a false summit.

Could we not also say that academics have a priority to "publish or perish"? When we use the benefits of hindsight to examine debunked theories, could we not also say that they were too eager to supply answers?

I agree about models filling the gaps with whatever is most probable. That's what they are designed to do. My quibble is that humans often synthesize the least objectionable answers based on group-think, institutional norms and pure laziness.

[watt]

why wouldn't you prefer _something_ over _nothing_. I assume AI steps in for issues that people haven't been able to begin to solve in decades.

[Majestic121]

It's much better to have _nothing_ than the wrong _something_, since with a wrong _something_ you build assumptions on wrong premises. Much better to accept that we don't know (hopefully temporarily), so that people can keep looking into it instead of falsely believing the problem is solved

[davidclark]

Absolutely prefer nothing here.

[throw4847285]

I bet Heinrich Schliemann would have loved AI.

[xenospn]

That _something_ could be worse than nothing.