[habibur]

I think it's ok. When wikipedia arrived, everyone was up in arms that people are learning from something that's open for anyone to edit.

But it rectified itself.

The same thing happened when Internet arrived. "Don't believe anything you read on the Internet."

I guess the reaction was same when printed media arrived.

But the thing is, things get better over time.

[dr_hooo]

> The same thing happened when Internet arrived. "Don't believe anything you read on the Internet."

Isn't the saying "Don't believe *everything* you read on the Internet."? Which is quite different (and still holds today).

[Capricorn2481]

Here's a thought - improving AI is a completely different ball game.

[otabdeveloper4]

> But it rectified itself.

Or did it?

[LeroyRaz]

I don't think things get better over time. What is your source for that? Here's an article (with sources) describing a massive down trend in literacy and reading comprehension: https://jmarriott.substack.com/p/the-dawn-of-the-post-litera...

In short, college students nowdays have lower reading comprehension than young children in the 1850s. That is not what I would call progress.

Speaking personally, I believe I would potentially have significantly worse critical reasoning abilities if I had grown up using LLMs. It is very clear to me the temptation of using them as an ersatz for engagement and thought.

I think you are perhaps conflating technological progress (yes technology has improved) with demographic progress. Demographic progress is far from monotonically increasing (reading comprehension is newly plummeting, maths scores are dropping in America, science per scientist is stalling compared to 50 years ago, etc...)

[radarsat1]

Ah so nothing bad happening anymore due to people believing what they read on the internet, huh? Interesting take.