True, but in that case we call it “errors” or “propaganda”, depending on the context and source. Plus the steep costs of traditional encyclopedias, the need to refresh collections with new data periodically, and the role of librarians, all acted as a deterrent against lying (since they’re reference material).

Wikipedia can also lie, obviously, but it at least requires sources to be cited, and I can dig deeper into topics at my leisure or need in order to improve my knowledge.

I cannot do either with an LLM. It is not obligated to cite sources, and even if it is it can just make shit up that’s impossible to follow or leads back to AI-generated slop - self-referencing, in other words. It also doesn’t teach you (by default, and my opinions of its teaching skills are an entirely different topic), but instead gives you an authoritative answer in tone, but not in practice.

Normalizing LLMs as “lossy encyclopedias” is a dangerous trend in my opinion, because it effectively handwaves the need for critical thinking skills associated with research and complex task execution, something in sore supply in the modern, Western world.

> Normalizing LLMs as “lossy encyclopedias” is a dangerous trend in my opinion, because it effectively handwaves the need for critical thinking skills associated with research and complex task execution

Calling them "lossy encyclopedias" isn't intended as a compliment! The whole point of the analogy is to emphasize that using them in place of an encyclopedia is a bad way to apply them.