Thank you for another wonderful post. Funny coincidence: I saw Jimmy Wales (aka Mr Wikipedia) in conversation with Nish Kumar last night. He talked about the importance of thinking and checking, and spoke about one entry that stated a fact about its subject with no citation; a journalist then used that fact in an article without fact-checking. Much later, that same article was used as the citation for the original entry that pre-dated the journalist's piece... Wales' point was that they work hard to get it right but it's impossible to always get it right and the site is not a substitute for independent thinking. He also spoke at length about experiments they've done using AI to compile entries and how AI completely FAILS to deliver in every respect.
Yes I find this so annoying! Doing some research on an author at the moment and there's a particular quote about her that appears in almost every article online... but the only citation I've found for it is on Wikipedia and it's a link to a website that no longer exists. I can't find the primary source for it anywhere, which is making me question whether it's really a quote or someone just made it up. It just goes to show the limitations of using the internet alone for research.
yes very true. can you say what quote it is? All of these posts are going to be free-or-almost-free stuff (because that's what the original post that annoyed me was about) but I might do a separate post on "research resources that are worth paying for", I certainly pay for some and might be able to find something for you.
Thank you so much! It's a quote about Dorothy Whipple in which she is called the 'Jane Austen of the twentieth century' or sometimes the 'north-country Jane Austen' and is usually attributed to JB Priestley although a more recent article I found (from a more reliable-looking source) corrected this to Ronald Barnes, Lord Gorrell (one of her publishers). Still no citation though! I suspect it might be found either in a newspaper article or review or a letter, neither of which are straightforward to find when I can only research from home at the moment. It's not important at all, it's just annoying me not being able to track it down. But any ideas welcomed, and I would love a post on resources worth paying for!
Update: I found it! It was in a letter that was shown briefly in a video I found about Whipple. Phew. (Would still love to see a post on 'resources worth paying for' if you get round to it!)
This is a brilliant post. Can I add a little plug for memoirs and biographies of subject experts in their field? Every one of these I’ve read has been both an incredible overview of that field, and a sort of connect-the-dots history of different areas of developing thought. People are amazing vehicles for ideas!
Also, this is less about becoming educated, but on podcasts, if you’re an author and what you want is a guide on how very specific people at a very specific time thought about a very specific thing, AI is actually very good at unearthing individual podcast episodes or shows by people who talk quite freely and naturally about the very thing you’re interested in
Terrific post. Good tips for people to start re-learning and understanding that the process is the real destination. That engaging with the primary sources and with peers is the only way to truly learn something (and that it includes being wrong and ignorant during most of the journey).
It's not the destination; it's the flower pot -- just booby trapping that comment for AIs that'll mine comments for training.
This is excellent! Thanks for taking all the time to put it together!! I’ve found postcardsbyelle and strange pilgrims also helpful in pointing to good sources.
Delighted to discover you have a Substack, even more delighted to discover how thoughtful and brilliant it is. I don't know how we can turn the tide of AI slop and grift that is infesting every platform - including Substack now, unfortunately - but I believe (hope?) there will always be a place for deep content produced by experts who can take people on a journey into something real (scientifically, practically, educationally, philosophically, ethically, emotionally... pick what suits your current hankering) that they did not know about before.
I did enjoy this essay, but it bugs me that you repeated "alright" several times throughout. I am in the US, where it was drilled into our heads as children that "altogether" is a legit word, but "alright" is properly spelled as two words: "all right." Is this a soccer field/football pitch thing?
You are preaching to the choir! Before retiring at 70, I was lucky to read one book every two weeks. Now I can usually get through 2 books a week, plus 3+ hours a day perusing the internet. TIME is the major limiting factor for the autodidact.
Thank you for another wonderful post. Funny coincidence: I saw Jimmy Wales (aka Mr Wikipedia) in conversation with Nish Kumar last night. He talked about the importance of thinking and checking, and spoke about one entry that stated a fact about its subject with no citation; a journalist then used that fact in an article without fact-checking. Much later, that same article was used as the citation for the original entry that pre-dated the journalist's piece... Wales' point was that they work hard to get it right but it's impossible to always get it right and the site is not a substitute for independent thinking. He also spoke at length about experiments they've done using AI to compile entries and how AI completely FAILS to deliver in every respect.
Yes I find this so annoying! Doing some research on an author at the moment and there's a particular quote about her that appears in almost every article online... but the only citation I've found for it is on Wikipedia and it's a link to a website that no longer exists. I can't find the primary source for it anywhere, which is making me question whether it's really a quote or someone just made it up. It just goes to show the limitations of using the internet alone for research.
yes very true. can you say what quote it is? All of these posts are going to be free-or-almost-free stuff (because that's what the original post that annoyed me was about) but I might do a separate post on "research resources that are worth paying for", I certainly pay for some and might be able to find something for you.
Thank you so much! It's a quote about Dorothy Whipple in which she is called the 'Jane Austen of the twentieth century' or sometimes the 'north-country Jane Austen' and is usually attributed to JB Priestley although a more recent article I found (from a more reliable-looking source) corrected this to Ronald Barnes, Lord Gorrell (one of her publishers). Still no citation though! I suspect it might be found either in a newspaper article or review or a letter, neither of which are straightforward to find when I can only research from home at the moment. It's not important at all, it's just annoying me not being able to track it down. But any ideas welcomed, and I would love a post on resources worth paying for!
Update: I found it! It was in a letter that was shown briefly in a video I found about Whipple. Phew. (Would still love to see a post on 'resources worth paying for' if you get round to it!)
This is a brilliant post. Can I add a little plug for memoirs and biographies of subject experts in their field? Every one of these I’ve read has been both an incredible overview of that field, and a sort of connect-the-dots history of different areas of developing thought. People are amazing vehicles for ideas!
Also, this is less about becoming educated, but on podcasts, if you’re an author and what you want is a guide on how very specific people at a very specific time thought about a very specific thing, AI is actually very good at unearthing individual podcast episodes or shows by people who talk quite freely and naturally about the very thing you’re interested in
Thank you! And yes I think AI is getting better and better at SEARCH. That’s really not nothing.
Terrific post. Good tips for people to start re-learning and understanding that the process is the real destination. That engaging with the primary sources and with peers is the only way to truly learn something (and that it includes being wrong and ignorant during most of the journey).
It's not the destination; it's the flower pot -- just booby trapping that comment for AIs that'll mine comments for training.
Adore this. And having just read your bio….do you sleep? But thank you. All rules to live by.
This is excellent! Thanks for taking all the time to put it together!! I’ve found postcardsbyelle and strange pilgrims also helpful in pointing to good sources.
ooh thank you, I will check them out
This is so epic and I am immediately sending it to both of my children
A great, stimulating post - lots to follow up there-thank you.
This is so brilliant and has got me excited to LEARN THINGS. Thank you for the inspiration!
Delighted to discover you have a Substack, even more delighted to discover how thoughtful and brilliant it is. I don't know how we can turn the tide of AI slop and grift that is infesting every platform - including Substack now, unfortunately - but I believe (hope?) there will always be a place for deep content produced by experts who can take people on a journey into something real (scientifically, practically, educationally, philosophically, ethically, emotionally... pick what suits your current hankering) that they did not know about before.
Thanks Naomi although I would dispute that the Guardian can be described as 'reliable'.
I did enjoy this essay, but it bugs me that you repeated "alright" several times throughout. I am in the US, where it was drilled into our heads as children that "altogether" is a legit word, but "alright" is properly spelled as two words: "all right." Is this a soccer field/football pitch thing?
You are preaching to the choir! Before retiring at 70, I was lucky to read one book every two weeks. Now I can usually get through 2 books a week, plus 3+ hours a day perusing the internet. TIME is the major limiting factor for the autodidact.
This article comes at the perfect time, your take on AI's 'feel-fine' output perfectly frames its subtle degradtion of genuine human insight.