I wasn't aware about the carbon dating thing especially as they still use it as a yardstick on various modern history/archaeology programs so thanks for educating me about that.

As for the "information at our fingertips" internet with its alterable,corruptible nature could not the same metric be applied to the libraries of written words of the past? Victors truth, the truth of vested interest etc. One man's truth is another man's lie and so forth.

Is the veracity of the web less honest than the written works,magazines and films of the past? The message being the same only the form by which it is presented has changed.

I wouldn't use film as any form of truth. You only have to look at the outpourings of certain sections of Hollywood, Spielberg in particular, to know that when it comes to their efforts re WW2 that only the Americans took part, won everything single handed and the feckless British, consisting only of "Cockneys", and associated allies sat on their collective arses or took no part what so ever in said conflict, some truth.

The American film industries distortion of the past is behind a joke based in the main in a vainglorious re writing of history. I cite films such as The imitation game,U571,Saving private Ryan (which included a disjointed unnecessary scene which had nothing to do with the setup where two actors are discussing something or other when one suddenly interjects that "Monty" is a jerk or something to that effect which the other actor replies "you won't get an argument from me.") as being distortions of reality that came into being long before the internet and AI.

I was fortunate to have had a long and treasured friendship with two Bletchley Park code breakers and was happy that they had left this world before the drek that is called "The imitation game" was released as I know it would have broken their hearts with its distorted untruthful portrayal of life at Bletchley during WW2 but yay for The Weinstein Company and Hollywood and all the lovely dollars it made based on a total fabrication of historical events.

So no excuse me if I say I won't have past arts, libraries etc, written filmed or other wise garner a higher moral standing in the pantheon of historical truth or importance above what the internet information age provides as I believe them to be two coins from the same mint, just packaged and polished differently but equally capable of being distorted to the same measure depending the particular creators world view at the time of authorship or vested interest before being presented to the world.


I have a collection of serialised books that were written during the Great War citing the events more or less as they were happening and the distorted propagandised nature of the writings, "The dirty baby killing Hun", etc has to be seen to be believed. Obviously done in an effort to raise moral, paint the British as the good guys and so forth as opposed to those nasty evil Germans.

Is this any different to the internet/TV/social media rantings of the "Donald" bragging about how many Iranian bridges-factories-powerplants he's personally destroyed?

Are such writings, citing just one example, as my old books more historically valuable than the "Donalds" rants will be when viewed in a hundred years time?

No in conclusion I believe the message will always be the same only the form in which it is presented changes over time with neither method being superior to the other. Like your self I come from that earlier age and perhaps we take comfort in that presentation of facts/history in said manner, eschewing the modern way of things as some form of untruthful evil that should be discounted, something that we are out of lockstep with hence our decrying of it when in reality what is the difference between say something written in social media and an article in the New York Times of Daily Mail?

Both have some form vested interest at heart be it one that is fiscal, self aggrandising or bullshit for bullshit's sake at the core of it.

Sorry if my view is offensive to anyone in any way as that is not my intention, just my honest belief.

An interesting topic Sarge, one which I thank you for as it raised some interesting points I think on both sides.


As for AI I have to say I'm on the fence on this at this time mainly due to lack of knowledge on the subject so would have to research further.

I do believe it has the potential to be a very useful tool in certain areas of say science, computing,engineering et al much like a virtual Swiss army knife if you will. whilst some may decry it's equally dangerous potential I can only say a Swiss army knife is equally dangerous especially when stabbed through the heart so both rank side by side in my estimation of their usefulness and lethality.