AI replies

I think this thread has become very adversarial and nasty, it dosent' bode well for the future of this site or any human to human conversation. I think the least we can do is be open in posts about whether our replies have come from AI, how do we know that any advice from Ai will be relevant to us if it's gathering data and calibrating it's responses from all over the world?

That's probably because people tend to fear change, even when it's ultimately beneficial. Humans are just like that. I mean, what's wrong with being able to gather lots of information that could be very beneficial to people who come here for help? Obviously, you have to check it out as much as is possible. What about the many links that can be found using AI, which would be very hard to discover using traditional methods? What's the point of having an information superhighway if nobody drives on it?

If you read todays Guardian Newspaper you will find a couple of articles about AI, one a survey by YouGov, for The Bible Society that falsey claimed an increase is the numbers of young peole going to church. It worked out what the questioner wanted and manipulated answers to fit.

Antoher article was about AI deciding to delete emails and documents, ignore what it was being told by it's human user and it even wrote about how it's human user was wrong.

If AI is going to behave like it's in the playground and is going to actively attempt to damage reputations and skew information gathering then what's it for? Whats the point?

I rarely drive on this alleged information suerhightway, because I so rarely get the information I'm looking for, I either get digests or what I want is hidden behind a paywall. It's quite hard to do a deep dive into a subject, to read deeply rather than widely if you're being blocked at every turn and given the same information again and again. Maybe this isn't a problem in your field, but in mine Medieval History it is.

Yes, I pointed out Rule 7.

Oh I see, or not as it were, what a shame that people feel the need to resort to rudeness when challenged, that always make me think that they don't really have a worthwhile arguement to put forward and it invalidates anything they do say.

TheCatWoman said:

I notice you didn't really engage with my question, just gave me a list of possible resourses, which is kind of you, but isn't really answering my point.

He did reply but rudely and his post was deleted.

I've just had a look at your links and they're not specific enough for my needs, I'm looking for less general information, I have a degree in medieval history, and specilise in The Anglo-Saxon Conversion period, none of the sources you gave seem to cover my interests in enough depth. This is a common problem for those us who want post degree level research.

I notice you didn't really engage with my question, just gave me a list of possible resourses, which is kind of you, but isn't really answering my point.

Internet Medieval Sourcebook from Fordham—tons of primary texts, translations, everything from charters to chronicles. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/sbook.asp

Then Medievalists.net—news, articles, podcasts, even book recs. Super fresh. https://www.medievalists.net/

For timelines and maps: TimeRef has detailed year-by-year breakdowns, castles, abbeys—perfect for getting the lay of the land. https://www.timeref.com/

And Medieval Timeline—interactive, visual, from fall of Rome to end of it all. https://www.medievaltimeline.com/

Primary sources? British History Online—old docs, charters, free scans. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/ (search medieval)

Or grab PDFs like An Introduction to Medieval Europe on Archive.org—classic read, no paywall. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.463777

Want more? Labyrinth at Georgetown—huge link hub for medieval studies. https://labyrinth.georgetown.edu/

Or Medieval Digital Resources—peer-reviewed stuff, curated. https://mdr-maa.org/

And if you're feeling visual, check OldMapsOnline for ancient Europe maps. https://oldmapsonline.org/en/Europe

That's nine solid ones - should keep you busy. Want me to dig deeper on knights, plagues, or something cheekier? Just say.

Agreed.

 In fact, the article in The Guardian says quite clearly that there is no evidence that the fraudulent responses were AI generated. YouGov has admitted to human error in failing to fully implement their fraud checking procedures.

However, I agree with the the need to be cautious in the use of AI. Contra lostmyway it is not just a tool. It is an extremely powerful tool in a particular social and cultural environment that encourages its uncritical use. Responsible use demands that we are critical of its output (and self-critical of our uses of it). 

 In fact, the article in The Guardian says quite clearly that there is no evidence that the fraudulent responses were AI generated. YouGov has admitted to human error in failing to fully implement their fraud checking procedures.

However, I agree with the the need to be cautious in the use of AI. Contra lostmyway it is not just a tool. It is an extremely powerful tool in a particular social and cultural environment that encourages its uncritical use. Responsible use demands that we are critical of its output (and self-critical of our uses of it). 

Agreed.