> For now, this is just funny, I laughed. But with the advent of all these new open-source LLMs, it will get worse. If you thought people were gullible for falling for fake comments from bots, just wait for the near future. Post-factual/Post-Truth era truly begins. The internet that used to be a source of information is no more, only islands of truth will remain (like, hopefully, Wikipedia, but even that is questionable). The rest will be a cesspool of meaningless information. Just as sailors of the sea are experts at navigating the waters, so we'll have to learn to surf the web once again.
I'm not sure what rock you've been living under, but this has been the internet for probably longer than a decade by now, the only difference is the volume. Even back before LLMs, or before Facebook, you couldn't take any "fact" at face value when found via the internet. And before that, the same people who fall for it now on the internet, fell for it when watching TV, or reading newspapers. People who are not interested in truth because it doesn't fit their world-view, will never be interested in the truth, no matter what medium it comes via.
I am aware of that. I like to think that millenials/gen-z at least knew a little how to sift through the fake information, and the gullible people were the elders.
But now with such obscene amounts of fake info at every corner, I think the internet and all source of information (even printed! - because printed at least would require significant effort) will loose credibility. Science will be the last bastion, and even that can easily be influenced by money.
> People who are not interested in truth because it doesn't fit their world-view, will never be interested in the truth, no matter what medium it comes via.
Yes, the claim is self-referential in the sense that it describes a certain attitude towards truth and how that attitude can affect one’s openness to new information. Specifically, the claim suggests that individuals who are not interested in truth because it conflicts with their existing beliefs are unlikely to change their minds even when presented with evidence or information that contradicts their views. This can create a self-reinforcing cycle where the individual becomes increasingly resistant to new ideas and perspectives.
The claim is: "People who are not interested in truth because it doesn't fit their world-view, will never be interested in the truth, no matter what medium it comes via."
It is not a suggestion, it does not say "it is unlikely, it is an unequivocal assertion of fact.
> This can create a self-reinforcing cycle where the individual becomes increasingly resistant to new ideas and perspectives.
That's my point (about the thinking underlying the comment in question).
It's interesting how humans self-privilege themselves when applying epistemology - other people's claims must be actually true, but for one's own claims "close enough" is typically an adequate bar. And it is typically only the other person who needs to improve their thinking.
I'm not sure what rock you've been living under, but this has been the internet for probably longer than a decade by now, the only difference is the volume. Even back before LLMs, or before Facebook, you couldn't take any "fact" at face value when found via the internet. And before that, the same people who fall for it now on the internet, fell for it when watching TV, or reading newspapers. People who are not interested in truth because it doesn't fit their world-view, will never be interested in the truth, no matter what medium it comes via.