Substack and other such platforms aren't search engines, or news sites, or light entertainment aggregators. They're not fungible, they don't and can't substitute for reliable, ordinary, information about the world.
I see your point, but I'm not sure you're right. I'm increasingly getting my "reliable, ordinary information about the world" from independent, carefully managed publications. The difficulty is in searching for and vetting better sources. There's an increasingly impressive journalistic presence on Substack itself, and you can even find very good sources for news-ish things on the bigger platforms, like YouTube, if, once again, you're willing to sidestep the algorithms.
If I want an explanation of Fibonacci numbers suitable for a 12 year old, or want to know find the minister for the environment, or check on a local road conditions because of a major incident, or to do a dive into current reporting on corruption in the building union, or the latest developments for pancreatic cancer, Substack or YouTube or even Wikipedia, or Tiktok, or X, aren't going to be sources of truth, they're devoid of ordinary stuff that ordinary people are looking for on a day to day basis.
Google now has AI running the show, forget algorithms. (If you want reliable medical info, don't bother, manually go to the Mayo Clinic instead, it saves scrolling way down the page, these days.)
Substack has one newsletter by real reporters on the ground in Ukrainian, that's a source of truth, not a blog, not someone's opinion. I would count that as a reliable and trusted source.
I'm old, I'm highly educated, been using the internet for nearly 30 years, I spent a decade in universities, I know how to undertake research. I know the difference between primary and secondary sources. This is basic stuff. Why the assumption that ordinary people need to be told how or where to find valid and useful information for their personal needs? We've all been doing it for a long time.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, except for what appears to be an accusation that I'm lecturing anyone on primary and secondary sources. I guess when it comes down to it, I'm a pretty ardent advocate of the DYOR ethos, but even saying that has become pretty politicized.
Several things seem clear:
- Lots of people do bad research, and conclude strange, false things about the world
- Lots of other people do reasonably good research, and are generally better informed than the majority
- Most (MOST) people let the ocean of content compromised by the attention economy sort of wash over them and delude themselves into thinking this makes them informed
It's not my desire, much less my responsibility, to make any kind of judgement call about which category the people who read what I write occupy. I'm some mix of all three, I'm sure.
My aim is just to try to understand what's happening, good and bad, and try to make and encourage better decisions along the way.
There is a growing body of robust research that demonstrates the human propensity to be unmoved by mere facts. This was true before the web, it's merely been compounded a few hundred times during the last couple of decades.
I don't know how informed the average person would claim to be, or informed about what.
The funny thing is, most people in the world don't use and have never used X, and even most of the people who have an account don't use it. Why is it funny? Because so many people are quite convinced that X or some other platform is the centre of the universe, and that the entire world is being harmed by drivel and dross.
Most people are just trying to get by with their lives, billions of people don't use those platforms. They might not be informed, but at least they're not misinformed!
Not everyone is compelled to be perpetually informed, it's not mandatory. Getting through each day is often enough.
I'm not too fussed about where people get their information, because they believe what they choose to believe regardless of the quality of the information put in front of them. It's an enduring quandary.
Once again, agreed on all counts. Although, my original post was less about information, and more about art and entertainment. But the applications are the same. Because even though billions of people aren't on one platform or another, the majority of all humans ARE on the internet in some way or another, and AI will penetrate every public space online. It's inevitable.
Around 2.6 billion people have no access to the Internet, but yes, the majority do, around 67 percent.
AI will affect business more than art and entertainment, it already has, prior to LLMs.
Art and entertainment are much smaller segments than government and private sector and NGOs .
While lots of people use the Internet for entertainment and distraction, I don't think many use it to consume art.
The mainstream media covers LLMs pretty obsessively, no one needs to find obscure sources to be informed.
So far, the world of arts and entertainment hasn't collapsed. We'll all have to wait and see. I think AI art and entertainment will turn out to be like the unlovable third cousin who's name no one can remember. I
I don't know why people in general need to be better informed about arts and entertainment, lots of mainstream art and entertainment are in real life, which remains very popular amongst the masses.
I'm sure that Netflix is rotting my brain, but occasionally it will surprise me with something edifying or educational.
Substack and other such platforms aren't search engines, or news sites, or light entertainment aggregators. They're not fungible, they don't and can't substitute for reliable, ordinary, information about the world.
I see your point, but I'm not sure you're right. I'm increasingly getting my "reliable, ordinary information about the world" from independent, carefully managed publications. The difficulty is in searching for and vetting better sources. There's an increasingly impressive journalistic presence on Substack itself, and you can even find very good sources for news-ish things on the bigger platforms, like YouTube, if, once again, you're willing to sidestep the algorithms.
If I want an explanation of Fibonacci numbers suitable for a 12 year old, or want to know find the minister for the environment, or check on a local road conditions because of a major incident, or to do a dive into current reporting on corruption in the building union, or the latest developments for pancreatic cancer, Substack or YouTube or even Wikipedia, or Tiktok, or X, aren't going to be sources of truth, they're devoid of ordinary stuff that ordinary people are looking for on a day to day basis.
Google now has AI running the show, forget algorithms. (If you want reliable medical info, don't bother, manually go to the Mayo Clinic instead, it saves scrolling way down the page, these days.)
Substack has one newsletter by real reporters on the ground in Ukrainian, that's a source of truth, not a blog, not someone's opinion. I would count that as a reliable and trusted source.
I'm old, I'm highly educated, been using the internet for nearly 30 years, I spent a decade in universities, I know how to undertake research. I know the difference between primary and secondary sources. This is basic stuff. Why the assumption that ordinary people need to be told how or where to find valid and useful information for their personal needs? We've all been doing it for a long time.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying here, except for what appears to be an accusation that I'm lecturing anyone on primary and secondary sources. I guess when it comes down to it, I'm a pretty ardent advocate of the DYOR ethos, but even saying that has become pretty politicized.
Several things seem clear:
- Lots of people do bad research, and conclude strange, false things about the world
- Lots of other people do reasonably good research, and are generally better informed than the majority
- Most (MOST) people let the ocean of content compromised by the attention economy sort of wash over them and delude themselves into thinking this makes them informed
It's not my desire, much less my responsibility, to make any kind of judgement call about which category the people who read what I write occupy. I'm some mix of all three, I'm sure.
My aim is just to try to understand what's happening, good and bad, and try to make and encourage better decisions along the way.
There is a growing body of robust research that demonstrates the human propensity to be unmoved by mere facts. This was true before the web, it's merely been compounded a few hundred times during the last couple of decades.
I don't know how informed the average person would claim to be, or informed about what.
The funny thing is, most people in the world don't use and have never used X, and even most of the people who have an account don't use it. Why is it funny? Because so many people are quite convinced that X or some other platform is the centre of the universe, and that the entire world is being harmed by drivel and dross.
Most people are just trying to get by with their lives, billions of people don't use those platforms. They might not be informed, but at least they're not misinformed!
Not everyone is compelled to be perpetually informed, it's not mandatory. Getting through each day is often enough.
I'm not too fussed about where people get their information, because they believe what they choose to believe regardless of the quality of the information put in front of them. It's an enduring quandary.
Once again, agreed on all counts. Although, my original post was less about information, and more about art and entertainment. But the applications are the same. Because even though billions of people aren't on one platform or another, the majority of all humans ARE on the internet in some way or another, and AI will penetrate every public space online. It's inevitable.
Around 2.6 billion people have no access to the Internet, but yes, the majority do, around 67 percent.
AI will affect business more than art and entertainment, it already has, prior to LLMs.
Art and entertainment are much smaller segments than government and private sector and NGOs .
While lots of people use the Internet for entertainment and distraction, I don't think many use it to consume art.
The mainstream media covers LLMs pretty obsessively, no one needs to find obscure sources to be informed.
So far, the world of arts and entertainment hasn't collapsed. We'll all have to wait and see. I think AI art and entertainment will turn out to be like the unlovable third cousin who's name no one can remember. I
Ah, not how I read it at all.
I don't know why people in general need to be better informed about arts and entertainment, lots of mainstream art and entertainment are in real life, which remains very popular amongst the masses.
I'm sure that Netflix is rotting my brain, but occasionally it will surprise me with something edifying or educational.
Just wait until Web4 baby