If something is incorrect on Wikipedia, it can be sourced, traced, disputed, fixed.

If it's wrong in the LLM, it's just...wrong. It's not a fact explicitly stored somewhere, it's just a string of words generated by a probability map

I just appeared on a local AI podcast and the first question was how I use AI for fun I just said, "I don't. I don't use AI in my personal life at all. I find it alienating." And that's a preview for pretty much how the rest of the episode went. Oops. 🙊

And this one on: "what I think about information literacy is that everybody owns it, so nobody’s accountable for it." 👏

On the near impossibility of teaching mis-info in a one-shot: "In fifty minutes, you can maybe have students do one thing... but something as sophisticated and charged as misinformation or
disinformation? No. The way to do it is not to do it in a one-shot."

Loved this finding that dispels the myth that librarians are still teaching the CRAAP Test with any regularity: "In contrast to the previous findings that CRAAP is ubiquitous in teaching evaluation... participants consistently derided the CRAAP Test as an out-dated method"

I've said this elsewhere, but I hate that we are more or less forced to be invested in capitalism's success because if our 401k/403bs fail, none of us ever get to retire (aka freedom from working for capital)