SoA Forums

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy87076pdw3o

Topical....

History has always come in three keys - history as lived experience; history as analytical study; history as myth.  AI will fill our world with more myth takes. 

PS - although out of period, I do recommend Paul Cohen's "History in Three Keys", his study of the Boxer uprising period in Chinese history.

This message has no AI content, as far as I am aware 

 

I think it shows a potential weakness in using AI for historical reconstruction - how does the AI judge from its vast data source what is historically accurate and what isn't?  How much is it guided by a human and how skilled is the human at making those judgements?  With a video game or a piece of TV or film, we might say its OK to compromise reality for the sake of entertainment, spectacle and story.  If the idea is to teach, even if the intention is to help visualise what the past was like, there is more of an obligation to stick to the facts or at least reasonable interpretations thereof.

For me, Kim boils the question down to its essence and Anthony expands on the creative aspect of recreating fact-based history.  Historians and those writing history must make choices. There is a seemingly inexhaustible array of choosing what to include and what not to include in the writing of history.  Writers often have an agenda or particular perspective from which they write.  Often, sources are plucked to support this narrative.  Hopefully, these choices are made thoughtfully and intelligently.  Not something I trust to AI generated histories unless we are interested in reading historical fiction or myth as in Kim's Third Key.

I touch on some of these AI pitfalls in a recent forum post on AI Designed Rules.

I think historians can be a bit over-precious on this sort of thing.

If this gets more people interested in history, then it's a great thing.  Yes, it may be inaccurate but what popular history isn't?

The idea that people's gateway into history should be via peer reviewed, academic standard articles is pretty laughable, really.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on February 23, 2025, 04:29:48 PMThe idea that people's gateway into history should be via peer reviewed, academic standard articles is pretty laughable, really.

Which is the reason I've always been a fan of well-written popular history  Or popular historians on TV. But, if there is no peer review, the obligation to get it right (even if it is condensed or simplifies complexities) puts a great burden on the author. I would apply the same standards to those peddling AI-assisted popular history.

I agree. I like historical dramas and novels but they have to be based on a good solid historical foundation for me personally

My concern about these videos is that the images they produce will become the dominant historical viewpoint for the general population. The producers have a responsibility to stay within the bounds of generally accepted historical research. The producers may present a different interpretation of the event, but they should not ignore or alter the basic knowledge. So, no lava burying Pompeii.

Popular histories can inspire and educate without being a dull, ponderous, peer reviewed piece of writing that can serve as a cure for insomnia. An example of an accurate, well written popular history is Battle Cry of Freedom, The Civil War Era by James M McPherson, a professor of American History at Princeton University. This book won the Pulitzer Prize for history and was a national bestseller that did educate the reader. I regard Professor McPherson's book as an example of what popular history should be.

Quite right too...the danger of 'popular' content without due diligence is misinformation

The problem comes when history is generated with an eye to modern politics and control

This has been a problem in every age, surely?  Didn't the Egyptians give a rather different spin to Kadesh than the Hittites?

We're all products of our political environments, and historians are no exception!

 

Quote from: Keraunos on February 24, 2025, 11:30:03 AMThis has been a problem in every age, surely?  Didn't the Egyptians give a rather different spin to Kadesh than the Hittites?

In the past, historians did not necessarily see their primary task as recounting the facts of past events. They may see the moral or religious or regime glorifying aspects as more important. Which is, of course, why we put store by understanding the agendas or simply social conventions of past historians.