Btw, I’ve been wondering for years why TV news programs call on journalists as authoritative commentators, instead of history or political science professors, who have many more years of study.
Apr 24, 2023·edited Apr 24, 2023Liked by Jason Steinhauer
Your presentation seems like it should be covered by C-Span. It sounds like just their kind of material.
But I'd like to add that one can still write using conventional citation and referencing. I've been doing it for half a century. Readers aren't all that gullible. Popular writers rarely cite their sources -- suggesting that their credibility is based on their personal authority rather than the substance of their presentation. Maybe George Packer can pull it off, but not a lot of others. Still, this seems to me to be more of a confidence scheme than scholarship. One should never neglect an opportunity to share sources. I've lost track of the number of times I've stopped reading a piece because the author made unsupported claims (eg., 43,754,258 men suffer discrimination because they can't compete against biological women in college softball) and failed to give his or her sources. I cite sources for all claims on my site BajaArizonaHistory.org. (You should have seen the notes before I cleaned them up.) I write about events, not the meaning of events. But if anyone wants to question anything I've claimed, they don't have to look far to get started. To my way of thinking, if a writer makes a sound claim and shows his or her sources and logic, he or she has something to say. But writing this way, and declining the vanity of telling the reader what it all means, doesn't fit the conventional format for writing about regional history. While I'm perfectly capable of devising a theory, and showing how material either supports it, or doesn't, I prefer to focus on reliable events. The reader can sort it out for herself. But, of course, the site is more reading list than a presentation of historical events. My hope is that the material is a starting point for the curious. The reader can see if I got it close to right, and have a head start on her own investigation. It's not a performance.
I would use AI to create an outline based on the input I provide it. In that sense, it's just my robot assistant. But to write a book for me would not satisfy the desire that stirs me to write in the first place. Those who use it in that manner are either motivated solely by money or appearance. A Game of Thrones, the way of the world, neither motivates me.
The universities, publishing houses and others referred to as gatekeepers are heavily influenced by China and anti-American indoctrination. The National Pulse has reported that most well-known media outlets have been to China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) events. There's similar influence on universities. It's not clear that their gatekeeping is consistent with truthfulness, public value or free speech.
Brilliant, Jason.
Btw, I’ve been wondering for years why TV news programs call on journalists as authoritative commentators, instead of history or political science professors, who have many more years of study.
I have been learning from a language bot. I’ve been learning Spanish with Duolingo for two years.
Your presentation seems like it should be covered by C-Span. It sounds like just their kind of material.
But I'd like to add that one can still write using conventional citation and referencing. I've been doing it for half a century. Readers aren't all that gullible. Popular writers rarely cite their sources -- suggesting that their credibility is based on their personal authority rather than the substance of their presentation. Maybe George Packer can pull it off, but not a lot of others. Still, this seems to me to be more of a confidence scheme than scholarship. One should never neglect an opportunity to share sources. I've lost track of the number of times I've stopped reading a piece because the author made unsupported claims (eg., 43,754,258 men suffer discrimination because they can't compete against biological women in college softball) and failed to give his or her sources. I cite sources for all claims on my site BajaArizonaHistory.org. (You should have seen the notes before I cleaned them up.) I write about events, not the meaning of events. But if anyone wants to question anything I've claimed, they don't have to look far to get started. To my way of thinking, if a writer makes a sound claim and shows his or her sources and logic, he or she has something to say. But writing this way, and declining the vanity of telling the reader what it all means, doesn't fit the conventional format for writing about regional history. While I'm perfectly capable of devising a theory, and showing how material either supports it, or doesn't, I prefer to focus on reliable events. The reader can sort it out for herself. But, of course, the site is more reading list than a presentation of historical events. My hope is that the material is a starting point for the curious. The reader can see if I got it close to right, and have a head start on her own investigation. It's not a performance.
Beautiful contribution about authorship, the internet and AI. Thank you for sharing it!
I would use AI to create an outline based on the input I provide it. In that sense, it's just my robot assistant. But to write a book for me would not satisfy the desire that stirs me to write in the first place. Those who use it in that manner are either motivated solely by money or appearance. A Game of Thrones, the way of the world, neither motivates me.
The universities, publishing houses and others referred to as gatekeepers are heavily influenced by China and anti-American indoctrination. The National Pulse has reported that most well-known media outlets have been to China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) events. There's similar influence on universities. It's not clear that their gatekeeping is consistent with truthfulness, public value or free speech.
The only important thing is “can I learn from this person “. If so, then this person is of value.