Books might not be great, but they are at least some minimum bar to reach. You had to do some study and analysis.
So
Top 10% of Books. Ok
90 % of Books. marginal, lot of bad.
Internet. Just millions of pages of junk.
- Books still take some effort. So why not start there.
It isn't either/or, binary, a lot of books are bad, so guess I'll learn my medical degree from browsing the web because I don't trust those 'experts'.
What is the top 10% of the Internet that isn't part of some publishing arm of existing media? And, how can you tell? Some dudes blog about vaccines verses Harvard? Which do you believe.
Where are the self funded scientific studies that are occurring outside of academia? And thus not 'biased' by the 'elites'.
For internet only writing. There aren't a ton of "Astral Codex Ten"'s to draw upon as independent thinkers. And even then, he didn't sprout out of the ether fully formed, he has a degree, he was trained in academia.
Why does that even matter?
So you brought up the top 10% of the Internet, possibly as argument against books? That maybe there is valuable information on the Internet.
I was just saying, that 10% is also created by the same people that create books. So if you are arguing against books, then the top 10% of the Internet isn't some golden age of knowledge coming from some different more reliable source.
I'll get you started with one of the great works from the 1600s:
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/49513/pg49513-images.ht...
The scientific method relies on evidence and reproducible results, not authority alone.
Edited to add a reference: see under Appeal to authority. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/fallacies/
Which definition of theory includes that it can never be 100% true? It can't be proven to be true, but surely it could be true without anyone knowing about it.
And as a consequence, they know where that area of expertise ends. And they know what half-knowing something feels like compared to really knowing something. And thus, they will preface and qualify their statements.
LLMs don't do any of that. I don't know if they could, I do know it would be inconvenient for the sales pitch around them. But the people that I call experts distinguish themselves not by being right with their predictions a lot, but rather by qualifying their statements with the degree of uncertainty that they have.
And no "expert system" does that.
How do you count examples like Musk, then?
He is very cautious about rockets, and all the space science people I follow and hold in high regard, say he's actually a domain expert there. He regularly expectation-manages experimental SpaceX launches downward.
He's also very bold and brash about basically everything else; the majority of people I've seeing saying he's skilled in any other area have turned out to not themselves have any skills in those areas, while the people who do have expertise say he's talking nonsense at best and is taking wild safety risks at worst.
The rest of the genius persona is growing up with enough ego that he could become a good salesman, and also badly managed autism and also a badly managed drug habit.
Seeing him dabble in politics and social media shows instantly how little he understands the limits of his knowledge. A scholar he is not.
That's not to say I think it is rationalizing it's own level of understanding, but that somewhere in the vector space it seems to have a Gradient for speculative language. If primed to include language about it, it could help cut down on some of the hallucination. No idea if this will effect the rate of false positives on the statements it does still answer confidently however
(And in neural network terms, that error bar could be represented by the number of connections, by congruency of separate paths of arguing, by vividness of memories, etc ... it's not above human reasoning either, no need for new data structures ...)
> People who are experts (PhD and 20 years of experience) often have very dumb opinions in their field of expertise.
The conventional wisdom is that experts are dumb OUTSIDE of their fields of expertise.
I don't know about you, but I would be very insulted by someone passing judgement like this on my own work in my field. I am sure that I would doubt their qualifications to even make the judgement.
Are there experienced fools? Sure. We both probably work with some. To me they are not experts, though.
Also, expert historians, philosophers psychs, etc. aren't judged based on their correctness, but on their breadth and depth of knowledge and their capacity to derive novel insights. Some of the best works of history I've read are both detailed and polemical, trying to argue for a new framework for understanding a historical epoch that shifts how we understand our modern world.
I don't know, I think I know very little about the world and there are people who know far more and I appreciate reading what they have to say, of course with a critical eye. It seems to me that disagreeing with that is just regurgitated anti-intellectualism, which is a coherent position, but it's good to be honest about it.
And the training data contains all those dumb opinions.
I think you overestimate the ability of a typical 'expert'. You can earn a PhD without the ability to reason critically. You can testify as an expert in a courtroom without understanding conditional probability. Lawyers and accountants in real life also totally contradict themselves when they get asked the same question twice but phrased slightly differently.