I’m in the middle of finishing the construction of my new literature course on www.english-champion.com, The Short Stories of Flannery O’Connor, coming March 1.
Your article reveals why subject encyclopedias are still superior to generative AI tools. The latter are essentially unverified, crowdsourced encyclopedias generated on the spot, making them even harder to evaluate because they are fluid. They are thus less trustworthy than Wikipedia articles, which are at least written by human beings supposedly with some measure of knowledge and theoretically reviewed by knowledgeable readers. ("Mass peer review" may be an overstatement of Wikipedia's actual quality of information.) But subject encyclopedias are written by experts and published by scholarly publishers. The qualitative difference is clear except to novices. Consequently, I emphasize the need to do lateral reading, to read other sources on the chosen topics to compare, contrast, and verify. AI tools have actually given readers more work to do.
Your article reveals why subject encyclopedias are still superior to generative AI tools. The latter are essentially unverified, crowdsourced encyclopedias generated on the spot, making them even harder to evaluate because they are fluid. They are thus less trustworthy than Wikipedia articles, which are at least written by human beings supposedly with some measure of knowledge and theoretically reviewed by knowledgeable readers. ("Mass peer review" may be an overstatement of Wikipedia's actual quality of information.) But subject encyclopedias are written by experts and published by scholarly publishers. The qualitative difference is clear except to novices. Consequently, I emphasize the need to do lateral reading, to read other sources on the chosen topics to compare, contrast, and verify. AI tools have actually given readers more work to do.
Excellent point, Rob! Love hearing your expertise and miss our chats.