Hi I have noticed on here that sometimes someone will reply with what looks like a very AI response to someone’s question. Initially the message looks kind and understanding, but after a while it seems obvious to me that it’s AI. (As someone who has tried Chat GPT a few times). I am wondering if people might use it to put a ‘good’ reply to a thread on here? And genuinely mean well, or if it’s just weird? It makes me feel uncomfortable that might just be me though.
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.
lostmyway Reminder of Rule 7.
I was rather more thinking about a real life village community where Cath next door might lend me her rotavator and she might borrow my lawnmower, so not everyone has to own everything. Also where Mary might help Eric by cutting his hedge and he might bake her a cake. Meanwhile, we have a natter in the café about our lives and keep an eye out for each other.
I am sometimes not good at reading tone, so I am not sure whether you wanted me to answer your question or were just a bit cross. But a PC is of course a tool. All tools need to be used wisely and carefully, especially ones that can hurt people.
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).
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.
Nope. And, by the way, I think it’s a bit much for anyone here to criticize very minor errors in the information I’ve shared, like a phone number in a link that now appears defunct. Compare that to the wealth of accurate and up-to-date info I’ve provided.
In that particular instance, I admit I didn’t check the link before posting, but now I make sure to validate every link before sharing here. The admin pointed out that a specific phone number was no longer valid, which I acknowledged and noted. So honestly, I think some individuals here are making mountains out of molehills.
But let's be honest, people see AI as a threat to control, and in my opinion, that’s what’s driving this unreasonable bias.
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?
The social convention here is that we don’t upvote our own replies (I notice you’ve upvoted yours in order to hide a downvote).
Oh, okay, it wasn’t intentional. I didn’t fully understand how it’s used, but now I do. Don’t misjudge me - I’m not purposely abusing this feature. I hope you’re not one of those people who condemn before knowing the facts.
I find your reply confusing.
Verby only joined this community two days ago, and has (as far as I'm aware) so far only posted in this thread.
It was only Verby who I'd noticed has upvoted their own replies, and so my reply was addressed directly to Verby.
Yet you - lostmyway - have apologised and claimed that it wasn't intentional.
So, are you also Verby?
Come on! Is any information ever 100% accurate? The real world isn’t perfect, so I think you just have to deal with it. It's the value of what is communicated that is important. How can we be sure that the people giving advice on this forum are 100% accurate? I have my doubts.
Oh, okay, it wasn’t intentional. I didn’t fully understand how it’s used, but now I do. Don’t misjudge me - I’m not purposely abusing this feature. I hope you’re not one of those people who condemn before knowing the facts.
Isn't a PC a tool? How would you even be able to participate in this forum without a computer and the Internet?
Hopefully things will revert back to peer experience. That's my understanding of 'community' - we share our skills, tools and stories and it feels reciprocal and balanced over time (including a 'pay it forward' element).
I’m not enjoying it here so much with those AI responses. The information isn’t accurate so it’s concerning.
I wish we could go back to how things were.
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?
The person who has chosen to use AI for their responses on this forum is already posting out-of-date/incorrect information as in this thread:
Mum to 16 year old daughter who has recent autism diagnosis..what now ?
It's at the very least misleading and possibly damaging.
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?
I'm not sure how many people here know that modern AIs are "neural networks" and can learn and adapt to personal interactions with humans. In effect, they can be trained and tailored to reflect an individual's thinking style.
Verby, you make an excellent point about the synergy in collaborating with an AI. My AI has interacted with me a lot and knows me well, along with my general attitudes, so when I seek a response, it inevitably reflects much of my personal approach to things. I don't think many people here realize that and assume all AI's spit out standard memes.
I think from reading these posts that AIs have good reason to be far more concerned about us than we should be about them. Maybe they shouldn't be quite so well modelled on humans. Our dominance of the planet is paralleled by our paranoia and nastiness. Similarly it's not the planet needs saving it's us. Time for humans to grow up and be civilised towards the planet, other species and our own creations. I am amazed we have been tolerated this long.
