This isn’t about individuals. We safeguard knowledge institutionally. For instance, everyone should read this open letter from the top mathematicians on the planet, describing how we are about to undermine our mathematical understanding IDIOCRACY style. (I’m paraphrasing.)

Essentially, mathematical proofs are worthless without the communities that discover them. We care about math proofs because they create these communities (safeguarding knowledge for the next generation), not vice versa.

Having ChatGPT assert a proof we lack the expertise to check defeats the purpose. Not to mention, we already know it will get things wrong because of Gödel incompleteness so this whole situation is peak irony.

Yes but that’s a completely different issue than the one the article describes.

You’re right, but the article had a similar flavor. Specifically, when looking up information, users should be discovering curious details that raise additional questions. The AI is a homogenizing service that removes this “creative discovery” aspect of information gathering.

Really narrow view of knowledge.

The danger of catapulting an entire generation into ai-fed answers isn’t the amount or quality of knowledge, it’s training people to ask and NOT verify, a pillar of attaining wisdom and true expertise.

Yes but that’s a completely different issue than the one the article describes.

You keep saying that and it’s not true.

Knowledge collapse due to AI feeding everyone the same answer without people having to do real research, aka comparing sources, will absolutely happen.

It’s like people can’t see data and extrapolate anymore.

Can you not see the numerous ways that funneling all information through a single source like AI is a terrible idea?

Hell off the top of my head, the consolidation of information to AI would easily let whatever company/govt that’s in charge change a narrative on a scale humanity has rarely or never seen.

Yes but that’s a completely different issue than the one the article describes.