[Nevermark]

This is not a good idea at all.

Government should not be in a position to directly and pervasively shape people’s understanding of the world.

That would be the infinite regress opposite of a free (in a completely different sense) press.

A non-profit providing an open data and training regime for an open WikiBrain would be nice. With standard pricing for scaled up use.

[squidbeak]

> Government should not be in a position to directly and pervasively shape people’s understanding of the world.

You disagree with national curricula, state broadcasters, publicly funded research and public information campaigns?

[cloverich]

Many Americans these days absolutely do disagree with all of those things. Educated ones. Theres simply a short circuit belief based pathway in peoples brains that bypasses everything rational on arbitrary topics.

Most of us used to see it as isolated to religion or niche political points, but increasingly everything os being swept into the "its political" camp.

[Nevermark]

Given “national curricula” of a dominant democratic country are undergoing a politically motivated change, starting with significant web materials, and moving into education …

Do you prefer the previous narratives? The latter? Or whatever you are told?

And that is the risk of relatively static information.

What if your information source was interactive, adaptive and motivated? And could record and report on your interactions and viewpoints?

[gloomyday]

I've heard once that Americans distrust their government and trust their corporations, while Europeans distrust their corporations and trust their government. I honestly think that governments already has a huge role in shaping people's understanding of the world, and that's GREAT on good democratic countries.

What I find really weird is that I am stopping believing in the whole idea of free press, considering how the mainstream media is being bought by oligarchs around the globe. I think this is a good example of the erosion of trust in institutions in general. This won't end well.

Your idea of letting it be run by a non-profit makes me believe that you also don't trust institutions anymore.

[Nevermark]

I can’t say I have no trust for any institutions.

But my trust depends on each institutions choices. Just as my trust in people varies based on their records.

Mostly, I trust everyone to be who they show themselves to be. Which can lean one way or the other, or be very mixed across different dimensions.

But, yes, governments and corporations which are steadily centralizing power are inherently untrustworthy. As they at best, are making us all vulnerable and less powerful as individuals. Meaning they are decreasing our freedom, not increasing it.

[navane]

Instead, we should let capitalism consolidate all power in the hands of the few, and let them directly and pervasively shape people's understanding of the world.

How would a non profit even be funded? That would just be government with extra steps.

No, capitalism giveth the LLMs and capitlism taketh the sales.

[Nevermark]

Were you responding to someone else?

For answers, just re-read my comment. Or, this:

1) Avoiding centralization is exactly why government shouldn’t do this.

2) Why did you raise a false dichotomy of government vs. commercial centralization?

I proposed an open solution, which is non-commercial with decentralized control.

3) Funding?: Have you heard of Wikipedia?

People often donate to prominent tools they use.

And, as I pointed out, there is an even more reliable source.

The necessity for scaled automated access creates an inevitable need for uniform openly set pricing for scaled up access.

I nice case where non-profit open access is naturally self-funded.