An analogy I like is something I heard recently but unfortunately forgot from whom so I don't know who to credit to.  But the analogy is to infectious disease.  We've had viruses and bacteria killing us for thousands if not millions of years, but it wasn't really a problem for the species until we developed cities and travel, where close contact and intricate networks could make it easy for disease to spread and do much more damage than back in prehistoric times.

It took a long time, but eventually we learned about how disease spreads and developed ways to combat it.  It takes a combination of societal action (sanitation, vaccines, government regulation, etc.) and individual action (hand washing, mask wearing, quarantining, etc.).

Similarly, there has always been mis-/disinformation but it wasn't really a big deal to the species at large as long as communication was rudimentary and limited.  But the creation of the internet was like the creation of cities, in that it suddenly allowed large numbers of people to interact with each other in ways that were previously impossible.  Unfortunately the internet is still too new for us to have figured out the best ways to prevent the spread of misinformation, but eventually when we do it will probably also require some combination of combination of societal and individual action.

> Then since of course ChatGPT will be constantly ingesting and absorbing online content in order to stay up to date, will we reach a point where ChatGPT is just endlessly recycling its own content? 

Sure, this is precisely the concern of a number of AI ethicists. We’re probably already past that point and some are stating that we’re at the data equivalent of “low-background steel” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel) where all steel produced since WW2 are contaminated with radionucleotides. In other words, we may only be able to trust that information was not produced by a computer if it can be absolutely dated as having been produced prior to 2022.

So, no, not a hypothetical musing at all.

>--------------------<

Gavin Chait is a data scientist and development economist at Whythawk.

uk.linkedin.com/in/gavinchait | twitter.com/GavinChait | gavinchait.com

This is just a hypothetical musing, but suppose ChatGPT (or at least the underlying code behind it) becomes widespread.  And suppose that part of that widespread use is the generation of online content -- news articles, blog posts, essays, real estate listings, biographies, you name it.  Then since of course ChatGPT will be constantly ingesting and absorbing online content in order to stay up to date, will we reach a point where ChatGPT is just endlessly recycling its own content? 

It seems like this could result in amplification of what would normally be slight biases in content to push them to more extremes, similar to news networks that toss out an idea to get their viewers talking about it, then report that it must be news because everyone is talking about it, perpetuating the cycle.

This is just a hypothetical musing, but suppose ChatGPT (or at least the underlying code behind it) becomes widespread.  And suppose that part of that widespread use is the generation of online content -- news articles, blog posts, essays, real estate listings, biographies, you name it.  Then since of course ChatGPT will be constantly ingesting and absorbing online content in order to stay up to date, will we reach a point where ChatGPT is just endlessly recycling its own content? 

It seems like this could result in amplification of what would normally be slight biases in content to push them to more extremes, similar to news networks that toss out an idea to get their viewers talking about it, then report that it must be news because everyone is talking about it, perpetuating the cycle.

This is just a hypothetical musing, but suppose ChatGPT (or at least the underlying code behind it) becomes widespread.  And suppose that part of that widespread use is the generation of online content -- news articles, blog posts, essays, real estate listings, biographies, you name it.  Then since of course ChatGPT will be constantly ingesting and absorbing online content in order to stay up to date, will we reach a point where ChatGPT is just endlessly recycling its own content? 

It seems like this could result in amplification of what would normally be slight biases in content to push them to more extremes, similar to news networks that toss out an idea to get their viewers talking about it, then report that it must be news because everyone is talking about it, perpetuating the cycle.

On 7 Mar 2023, at 4:44 PM, Robert Armacost <rarmacostjr@...> wrote:

Great thoughts, James (and Laura & Dennis),

I think that too often when we talk about KM, we use concepts that are too abstract and not understandable by folks in the business/line.  We like to fall on words such as "audits, curation, tacit, explicit, taxonomies, etc", and by doing so confuse/lose the people we are trying to impact.  And confuse the leaders who are funding the programs.  That is a reason why so many organizations still abandon their KM programs.  The Digital Workplace is a nice umbrella concept that brings together all we are doing in KM -- to help employees (and the entire organization) deliver better results more efficiently.  While we all say that KM is not about technology first, users often see the results thru technology.  So let's embrace this.

I also think that Microsoft is part of the problem!  (details for another post....).

Keep the comments coming.

Fantastic insights, Robert. Your emphasis on people and process over technology really resonated with me.

I’m the program manager for a knowledge services team that sits within the technology workgroup at an architecture firm. We are responsible for both knowledge strategy and the digital workplace experience. Here are some of my thoughts:

Some people think of the digital workplace as a set of tools, or as an experience. From my perspective, the digital workplace is best thought of as an environment. My definition of a digital workplace is something like “the virtual environment that supports employee work, communication and collaboration.” In the built environment, architects and designers have to consider concepts like building performance, design affordances, navigation and adjacencies, to name a few. To be welcoming, comfortable, intuitive and functional, the digital workplace environment should consider what those concepts mean within a virtual space.

Knowledge strategy has to consider culture, business priorities, process and content needs, all at once. I think of the digital workplace as providing a place for the expression and formalization of an organization’s knowledge strategy. Knowledge strategy is also expressed outside of the digital realm, of course, but the digital workplace provides a mechanism for clarity and capture. (Noting here that I don’t believe that all knowledge can or even should be captured, but when it can and should be, the digital workplace typically provides mechanisms for doing so.)

“A needed focus of a digital workplace is to deliver critical knowledge to staff when they need it, in the flow of their jobs.”

Absolutely agree, the goal of delivering the right knowledge to the right person at the right time has long been held up as the ultimate KM vision. Critical success factors, from my perspective, would include:

• data governance and well developed taxonomies
• methods for developing a deep understanding of the members of an organization, and where they are in their work at any given time
• integration between systems, which should be supported by the data governance strategy

Another element that I continuously grapple with is striking a balance between ignorance and overload. In other words, I want to protect the brain health and focus of our employees by not bombarding them with irrelevant information and notifications. At the same time, I hesitate to make assumptions about what any given employee wants or needs to know. Innovation often lives where disparate concepts are pulled together and applied in new and exciting ways. There is low hanging fruit, like targeting employees by geography, but how else can we target employees through the digital workplace without isolating them from potentially powerful insights?

Looking forward to hearing other perspectives!