Skip to content

Dan Q

    • Articles
    • Everything
    • Notes
    • Reposts (shares)
    • Checkins (geo*)
    • Videos
    • Reviews
    • Comics
    • Tags
    • Stats
    • Subscribe
    • Blogroll
  • About
    • Semi-standard "slash pages" you might like to explore:
    • /about
    • /blank
    • /blogroll
    • /colophon
    • /contact
    • /cv
    • /license
    • /postcards
    • /privacy
    • /salary
    • /shh
    • /slashes
    • /stats
    • /subscribe
    • /where
    • Hide posts of type:
    • Choose how Dan's dressed:
    • Hair
    • T-Shirt
  • Contact
  • Podcast

Day: 1 July 2024

  • Humans invented Wikipedia, which made accessing information highly-convenient, at the risk of questions about its authenticity1.

    Then humans invented GPTs, which made accessing information even more-convenient2 at the expense of introducing hallucinations that can be even harder to verify and check.

    Is humanity's long-term plan to invent something that spews complete nonsense that's simultaneously impossible to conclusively deny?3

    Full image of Shonky MSPaint-grade graph showing ease of access increasing as ease of verification decreases, with a trend line going through Wikipedia (2001) through ChatGPT (2022) to an unknown future in 2043.
    Alt

    Shonky MSPaint-grade graph showing ease of access increasing as ease of verification decreases, with a trend line going through Wikipedia (2001) through ChatGPT (2022) to an unknown future in 2043.

    Footnotes

    1 I'm well aware that in many subject areas Wikipedia routinely outranks many other sources for accuracy. But the point remains, because you've no idea what the bias of randomuser123 is; even if you check the sources they cite, you don't know what sources they omitted to include. I love Wikipedia, but I can't deny its weaknesses.

    2 Sure, ChatGPT and friends aren't always more-convenient. But if you need to summarise information from several sources, you might find them a more-suitable tool than those which came before. Why do I feel the need to add so many footnotes to what should have been a throwaway comment?

    3 Actually, now I think about it, I'm confident that I can name some politicians who are ahead of the machines, for now.

    • Note
    • 1 comment
    • posted 1 July, 2024
  • Dan with a child in front of beamlines coming out of the Diamond Light Synchrotron ring.

    Science Weekend

    It was a weekend full of science, starting with a visit to the excellent open day at Harwell Campus and a trip to the Diamond Light Synchrotron, and finishing with a series of medical tests on my lungs and why they're not working as well as they ought to. With graphs!

    Read more (434 words)

    • Article
    • posted 1 July, 2024

Get in Touch

I'd love to hear from you! Why not...

  • email me on blog@danq.me?
    (my spam filter is aggressive, so use a good subject line, i.e. not just "hello"; encrypt your email if you like)
  • say hi on Mastodon, where I'm @dan@danq.me?
  • send a letter or postcard to
    Dan Q, Unit 159610, PO Box 7169, Poole, BH15 9EL, UK
  • reach out some other way?
  • ยฉ Dan Q 1998-2026
  • Creative CommonsAttributionNon-Commercial except where stated (how to use)
  • powered by BloqClassicPressHTML5CSS3
  • privacy
  • Read articles, checkins, notes, reposts, and more...
  • @dan@danq.me
  • contact
  • subscribe
  • Dan Q
  • Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial license
  • ClassicPress
  • CSS is awesome
  • Created by a human, not by AI
  • LGBTQ+ pride flag (2018 progress variant)
  • Polyamory flag
  • Say no to Web3
  • Mastodon (it's like email... no, come back!)
  • Tested on Firefox
  • Best viewed on the Internet
  • PHP
  • Ruby
  • Debian
  • Caddy (webserver)
  • Find me on Melonland
  • Check out my GitHub
  • Three Rings - by volunteers, for volunteers, since 2002
  • I'm a fucking webmaster
  • Looks best at: any resolution!