[drusepth]

Ironically, the prevalence of AI "tells" like that (combined with the ubiquity of AI works passed off as human-written) will inevitably feed back into more use by non-AI writers who think they're normal.

(Also, I'm never gonna give up my em dashes.)

[asdff]

This assumes non ai writers are drinking from the well of slop. Not all of course. Some people still read old books.

[pixl97]

Old books don't tell you much about now in a great number of topics.

>Gell-Mann Amnesia effect

We're very familiar with this effect when it comes to the news, but since a lot of people are now looking at older information as some kind of escape it seems prudent to point out that old books themselves are of varying quality.

Moreso, how do you track said quality of old books in the modern age where their will be incentives to game the system (for example those that own publishing rights to said books). Some books will be high quality, but the information in them will be outdated due to changes in understanding. Other books might as well have been written by AI and transported to the past they hold so many bullshit claims.

The pareto distribution will cover the most popular books, but once you step into the long tail of research you've hit another no mans land of is it true or not.

[asdff]

Reference material is one thing. But literature is pretty timeless. And there are used bookstores and public libraries.

[pixl97]

You might underestimate the amount of pulp paperbacks that have been printed over the years. Quite often these are just a single step above AI slop.

[asdff]

Sure, and it infests the little free 'libraries' you see scattered around the neighborhood and often the shelves in the Goodwill, but a good used bookstore and a good public library system will do a bit of filtering on that. These places aren't firehoses.