People say this without any evidence. This ai-post is just regurgitating hn-thread "received wisdom". The evidence for the existence of a library is thin and hard to piece together, but points to more than a myth. I appreciate that people want real proof of anything, but dumping an ai-slop summary is hardly doing any better than accepting the existence of a large library.

▲

adastra22 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The Library almost certainly existed. It is the destruction (by deliberate fire) that is probably myth.

▲

z3phyr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Its destruction multiple times (in sieges and uncontrolled fires) is current historical consensus.

▲

toenail 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Historical consensus? So the non scientific view? Science is not consensus based.

	▲	tsimionescu 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If you want to know what the science says on some topic, you have exactly two valid options: 1. Become an expert in said topic, reading the broad literature, becoming familiar with points and counterpoints, figuring out how research actually works in the field by contributing some papers of your own, and forming your own personal informed opinion on the preponderance of the evidence. 2. Look at the experts' consensus on said topic Of course, you have other options. A popular one is to adopt the view of one expert in the field that you happen to like, who may or may not accept the consensus view - but this is far more arbitrary than 1 or 2.