|
| ▲ | kiicia 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| you can still find books published within last 50 years, you don't have to read books published this year, unless your library went through destruction of "old" books which are now more relevant than ever... |
|
| ▲ | wiseowise 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| FILTER BY Publish date:<2024 |
|
| ▲ | CircuitSeuss 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Of course they are. It’s everywhere, especially thr online retailers these days. [1] Thankfully the resources at our local libraries are a) selected by a combination of librarian curation and public demand, b) often published before 2022, c) heavy things printed on paper or stored in a database and unlikely to suddenly change their content or disappear overnight when a new news cycle breaks.
Written works aren’t necessarily credible even if they aren’t slop, but thanks to curators who care, our libraries are significantly less susceptible (although definitely not immune [2]) to ai slop, and propaganda and manipulation efforts than a search engine. The internet continues to enshittify, and truth becomes further eroded by this coming wave of ai enabled propaganda, we are going to have to turn somewhere if we want to find trustworthy resources. Personally, if it gets to the point that verifying sources from public search results becomes too hard with all the new misinformation and slop, I’ll start propritizing human curation over SEO and start visiting my local library’s website a lot more. [1] https://thenewthings.com/p/apple-big-ai-book-slop-problem [2] https://www.404media.co/ai-generated-slop-is-already-in-your... |
| |
| ▲ | dofm 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right; the same mechanisms (curation, demand-driven economies of scale, library user demand) that largely stop niche self-published books from ever finding themselves in libraries (well, nationally in public libraries at least; they are often found in individual branches) work against pure slop books ever turning up. Books where the author has successfully hoodwinked the publishing process into believing that AI generated text is their own, those will turn up, just as plagiarised books will. |
|
|
| ▲ | dofm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Some nuances here. There’s a variety of different roadblocks at different levels that will work to prevent pure AI slop books ever turning up in a typical public library of physical printed works; I think they never will. Probably a handful of books in such libraries already have some text in them where the author has tried to pass off fragments of LLM-generated prose as their own and have got that past editors, reviewers and publishers, and that will sadly get worse. |
|
| ▲ | Larrikin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No? Maybe soon but not now |
|
| ▲ | LoganDark 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But they don't have library cards. |
|
| ▲ | wavefunction 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I know my library system at least won't be purchasing AI books. They have a pretty rigorous acquisition process for books and other media thanks to the "concern groups" who sprang up complaining about themes and content they didn't like in libraries. We did have in my state a rural school district figured out recently that their Texas-based reading and instructional materials are AI-slop but they at least figured it out before the school year began. It was unclear how these materials were approved but it apparently bypassed normal curricula approval. |
|
| ▲ | hasteg 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's so obvious when a book is generated by an LLM that I would blame the person buying the book moreso than I would the person who generated it for it. You can tell in a few sentences if something is AI generated (and by proxy - if it's worth reading or not). I think using LLMs to research is completely fine, as long as authors would take the information and synthesize their own opinions based on the findings. I read books/articles/posts/comments to hear other PEOPLE's opinions, not LLM generated opinions. |