Britannica has a uniquely high-quality collection of general knowledge. Many of their current articles are written by domain experts, sometimes leading experts. (In the past, people like Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud wrote articles for Britannica.) They also own Merriam-Webster, a highly-respected dictionary.
I wonder if that content trains their AI and how much difference it makes.
Also, is there value in training an AI on a dictionary? It would lead to poor writing style.
jterrys 4 minutes ago [-]
A while ago I purchased a full set of the Harvard Classics, first edition. I had a blast going through them. Part of me wishes they'd release an updated Encyclopaedia, and I could certainly afford it now compared to when I was a young college grad. But part of me also knows they'd probably just gather dust, to remain ignored even by my children. The paper quality on the later editions were never particularly good, and they never felt quite nice to leaf through.
Suppafly 2 hours ago [-]
>Britannica Didn’t Just Survive. It’s an A.I. Company Now.
I wouldn't call that surviving. It's like someone reanimating your corpse and pretending it's still you.
dougb5 40 minutes ago [-]
Between britannica.com and Merriam-Webster, their sites get 120 million visits per month, per SimilarWeb. That's not ChatGPT level popularity, but it's way better than mere survival. It might even be more "visits" than their hardcopy books got back in the day. (At least in the case of Britannica, it surely is -- EB only ever sold 7 million copies in its history. [1]).
The idea that they're turning into an "AI Company" is just the headline writer's spin on things; I don't think that's how they see themselves at all.
We used to have a set. Sadly I think it got damaged in a flood. Tragic really, some good stuff in there, and an important part of history.
I guess maybe I'll leave a copy of Wikipedia lying around somewhere at some point so somebody can stumble upon it and be amused.
adamrezich 42 minutes ago [-]
A fate worse than death.
downrightmike 1 hours ago [-]
We're all AI companies now!
add-sub-mul-div 36 minutes ago [-]
Oh great, yet another company that spits out text and crosses its fingers that it's either correct, subtly enough incorrect that the user won't notice, or that the user doesn't even care because they'll copy/paste the output without reading it.
Rendered at 06:26:01 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I wonder if that content trains their AI and how much difference it makes.
Also, is there value in training an AI on a dictionary? It would lead to poor writing style.
I wouldn't call that surviving. It's like someone reanimating your corpse and pretending it's still you.
The idea that they're turning into an "AI Company" is just the headline writer's spin on things; I don't think that's how they see themselves at all.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/03/encyclopaedi...
> Britannica Didn’t Survive. It’s an A.I. Company Now.
We're not unreasonable; I mean, no one's gonna eat your eyes
I guess maybe I'll leave a copy of Wikipedia lying around somewhere at some point so somebody can stumble upon it and be amused.