SoA Forums

This kind of AI is just a giant internet index system that responds to a query with a search and uses its software to mesh the relevant material together in a single presentation. It is utterly dependent on human input and the importance the internet logarithms place on that input. Which means, meh, what's the big deal? I'm waiting for all this excitement over AI to wear off. We got over the hula hoop so I'm hopeful.

PS: I just turned 60 so am entitled to be a grumpy old man.

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?

That wasn't history, that was news 

Quote from: Prufrock on February 24, 2025, 12:06:43 PMWe're all products of our political environments, and historians are no exception!

That is why I still pick up history books written a century ago 
Depending on the topic the knowledge can be dated, but the opinions of a previous age are a nice counter to the opinions of a current age.
I looked at my stuff on the Greeks in India and Bactria and discovered my books range from high Victorian adventurism through Pre-War certainty, the fine flowerings of Indian Nationalism, and Late American Colonialism   

99% of the population isn't going to read a book on the ACW however well written.  So the real choice is between something like this, and absolutely no historical knowledge at all.

Personally I'd go for the former, because it's a gateway to more detailed and more accurate stuff.  Bore them the first time, and they'll never come back.

You may think that these videos are inaccurate, but they're nothing compared with what most of the population believes...

Quote from: Cantabrigian on February 24, 2025, 01:37:35 PM99% of the population isn't going to read a book on the ACW however well written.  So the real choice is between something like this, and absolutely no historical knowledge at all.

Personally I'd go for the former, because it's a gateway to more detailed and more accurate stuff.  Bore them the first time, and they'll never come back.

You may think that these videos are inaccurate, but they're nothing compared with what most of the population believes...

Most people never do the deep dive into any topic to the extent they acquire an accurate understanding of it. I tend to think a little knowledge is dangerous since it creates spurious certitudes (the Roman upper class were absolutely corrupt to the extent of having a room dedicated to throwing up when they over ate), so absolute ignorance is perhaps the better option. At least you know you don't know.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 24, 2025, 12:52:31 PM

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.

Which historians do you have in mind, and to what extent did they distort the facts in favour of a moral and religious agenda?

That's a tricky one.  I won't be able to say much on classical sources, though the name Suetonius is often mentioned.  Plutarch, I believe had something of a moral agenda (though I must admit he always seemed fairly good at his job to me).

Medieval stuff I'm more familiar with. So, the lives of saints tend to be stronger on religious significance than factual reportage.  European crusades histories tend to have very pro-crusade, anti-pagan narrative. The legitimacy of monarchs actions are often written of as confirmations of just cause and divine favour.

I'm sure there is plenty more but I think gives a general perspective.

Quote from: Erpingham on February 24, 2025, 02:10:49 PMThat's a tricky one.  I won't be able to say much on classical sources, though the name Suetonius is often mentioned.  Plutarch, I believe had something of a moral agenda (though I must admit he always seemed fairly good at his job to me).

Medieval stuff I'm more familiar with. So, the lives of saints tend to be stronger on religious significance than factual reportage.  European crusades histories tend to have very pro-crusade, anti-pagan narrative. The legitimacy of monarchs actions are often written of as confirmations of just cause and divine favour.

I'm sure there is plenty more but I think gives a general perspective.

I suspect that if one is looking at historians who are trying to be historians most of them can be quite reliable, at least to the extent of not allowing religious or moral considerations to distort the facts as they know them. Suetonius though was more like a modern journalist. Don't let facts get in the way of the spice.   

Lives of the saints....depends on who's writing them. Of course the conviction that they're all tosh rests on the assumption that miracles and any supernatural event are impossible, and that is an assumption.

Crusader histories...I'm weak on these. Can one distinguish between reliable and non-reliable ones?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 24, 2025, 03:16:37 PMLives of the saints....depends on who's writing them. Of course the conviction that they're all tosh rests on the assumption that miracles and any supernatural event are impossible, and that is an assumption.

To go back to my original suggestion, I think the primary purpose of a saint's life was to glorify the saint (hence we have a special term for this type of writing). I don't think they are useless as history but we must approach them with their purpose in mind.

QuoteCrusader histories...I'm weak on these. Can one distinguish between reliable and non-reliable ones?

Not my subject either (I'm not that interested in the Crusades tbh) but I understand some are more reliable than others.  Joinville is supposed to be quite good, as we get a soldier's eye view. But all will see the situation based on their religious background (understandably).

 

A few of these have popped up on Instagram, they are hilarious

I don't see a vast amount of difference between AI-generated historical scenes (complete with inaccuracies) and, say Ridley Scott-generated historical scenes (complete with inaccuracies).

In the case of the latter, the excuse is always "it's just entertainment" or "nobody would think it was a history lesson" - which are both lame excuses IMHO as accuracy can be just as entertaining, and lots and lots of people think it is a history lesson.

Visualising history is a worthwhile activity - I always think of history on three levels: what happened, why or how did it happen, and what was it like (which is the poor relation). Videos whether made by AI or humans can help with the last of these, but if not as accurate as possible, there's no point. My experience of AI content to date does not fill me with confidence that the accuracy will be high enough to make the exercise worthwhile (the same observation applies to the films of Ridley Scott).

Quote from: RichT on February 24, 2025, 05:43:35 PMVisualising history is a worthwhile activity - I always think of history on three levels: what happened, why or how did it happen, and what was it like (which is the poor relation). Videos whether made by AI or humans can help with the last of these, but if not as accurate as possible, there's no point.

A good summary. Good reconstruction is a way to help people relate to history.  As Mike said, we can't expect everyone to dive into reams of peer reviewed text written by people with poor communication skills - they will be put off before they get to the interesting bits. So gateways are important.

As I understood the chap making the videos who was interviewed at our start point, he isn't just asking the AI to make a video and then put it up.  He has some hand in the creative process. Like a director working with humans, he needs to balance his intention (art, drama, entertainment, education) and get it into the product. I don't think AI can be praised for the good bits or damned for the rubbish bits really.

And to be fair it's been done for centuries. Ancient authors weren't above embellishments and spin...

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 24, 2025, 01:46:06 PMI tend to think a little knowledge is dangerous since it creates spurious certitudes (the Roman upper class were absolutely corrupt to the extent of having a room dedicated to throwing up when they over ate), so absolute ignorance is perhaps the better option. At least you know you don't know.

Stepping outside your front door is a dangerous thing - you never know where it may take you.

The problem is that if you want anyone to have a lot of knowledge, then they have to go through a stage of only knowing a little.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on February 25, 2025, 07:57:20 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on February 24, 2025, 01:46:06 PMI tend to think a little knowledge is dangerous since it creates spurious certitudes (the Roman upper class were absolutely corrupt to the extent of having a room dedicated to throwing up when they over ate), so absolute ignorance is perhaps the better option. At least you know you don't know.

Stepping outside your front door is a dangerous thing - you never know where it may take you.

The problem is that if you want anyone to have a lot of knowledge, then they have to go through a stage of only knowing a little.

The real problem is that to know a thing truly you have to know it in depth and nobody has the time to thoroughly research every topic. That means we rely on summaries done by others for almost everything we think we know. A summary by itself is already inaccurate and one has no way of knowing if the source of the summary is somebody's right thumb or something more substantial. I mean....look at the quincunx!