The advent of the internet, with its vast repositories of information, has long promised to democratize access to knowledge. Thirty years ago, Google Search emerged as a revolutionary tool, offering the tantalizing prospect of "everyone having access to everything", and an “enlightened workforce”, making employees smarter and more effective. While Search has undoubtably facilitated great knowledge transfer, it is still merely a tool. Similar to ChatGPT, it is a tool being placed ahead of the toiler using it.
Three decades ago, industries like IT were dominated by volumes upon volumes of trade manuals. the World Wide Web was in its infancy, and the idea of being able to find this information quickly and easily was nothing short of revolutionary. Google Search emerged as a dominant force in this landscape, transforming the way we seek and acquire information. The phrase "Google it" became synonymous with looking up information, and the company's mission statement to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" seemed to fit this paradigm.
The promise of this "democratized knowledge" held immense potential for society. It suggested a future where information was not confined to the elite or those with access to specialized libraries but was available to anyone with an internet connection. In theory, it could bridge knowledge gaps, foster innovation, and lead to a more informed and empowered citizenry.
However, this vision has a stumbling block: the limitations of the average user. While Google Search provided a gateway to an unprecedented wealth of information, it didn't guarantee that users would effectively harness this power. The average person, it turns out, often struggles with information literacy, critical thinking, and discerning reliable sources from misinformation. The "filter bubble", or Personalized search results, tend to reinforce preexisting beliefs and limit exposure to diverse perspectives. This unintentional echo chamber effect hindered the broadening of knowledge horizons and deepened societal divisions. These limitations in human abilities have prevented the realization of the promise.
Similar to Google Search, ChatGPT arrived on the scene with absurd expectations. It was hailed as a transformative tool capable of answering questions or assisting with tasks, and even generating creative content. It is seen as an avenue for democratizing access to expertise, a knowledge generation machine. An engine of intelligence… Albeit, “artificial intelligence”.
While ChatGPT possesses impressive capabilities, it is only as useful as the questions asked and the instructions given by users. It is not Artificial Intelligence. The "garbage in, garbage out" principle applies here as well as it does to any other computer platform. if users lack the ability to formulate precise queries or critically assess the AI's responses, the knowledge engine is useless. Additionally, ChatGPT is not immune to propagating misinformation if users are not discerning about the information it provides. This mirrors the issues seen with Google Search and the spread of misinformation online, emphasizing the importance of ability of the user. The parallel between Google Search 30 years ago and ChatGPT today underscores an essential truth: technology only exists as a tool for human consumption, and is only as good as useful as the human who is consuming it.
