AI is fundamentally changing how we access information. Instead of actively looking for it, information is being delivered to us in response to targeted questions.
This is not a trivial change. This changes the relationship with the information we consume, in three ways.
1. Lack of information adjacency
When considered spatially, information has “adjacency,” meaning there’s related information surrounding what we’re looking for. In the process of finding what we want, we see incidental, adjacent information, which fleshes out our target. That adjacent information gives it more dimension or context.
Imagine you’re looking for Elvis’s birthdate. In finding that, you might be incidentally exposed to lots of other information: his family history, major milestones in his life, and how revered he is decades after his death.
None of this is what you were looking for, but these facts give you more context and information. In finding the specific piece of information you were looking for, you’ve gained a greater understanding of it.
AI will essentially “teleport” information to us without any transitional states. Although the saying “getting there is half the fun” is a cliché, how much would we lose if we could teleport without the need for physical travel? Likewise, if we lose the transitional states that accompany searching for information, what have we lost?
2. Murkier provenance
In the process of searching for information, we develop a contextual belief that the information is reliable. We can evaluate sources, not only from the information provided but also from the contextual setting the information is in.
In fine art, there’s a concept called “provenance.” This is the history of ownership of a piece of art since it was created. A complete provenance for a painting will explain who has owned it and where it has hung for the entirety of its existence. This context ensures the authenticity of the work. Art without provenance, or with significant gaps, may be suspected of fraud or forgery.
The same is true of information. Do we trust the information we seek out more than the information that’s simply given to us? Does investing time and energy in discovering a fact give us more belief in the provenance of the information?
3. Illusion of clarity
When we search for information, we often find things we weren’t looking for. We find information that contradicts what we believe. When information finds us, however, it’s usually in response to a specific question.
Questions tend to be narrower and more focused, so the answers are similarly narrow. This might strip out important context and give us the mistaken impression that something is far more settled than it really is. Information delivered in this way is clean, clear, and with minimal ambiguity.
In reality, information is messy, subjective, and often disputed. A key to understanding something is understanding the terms on which it’s debated. There’s the intellectual center of something, and then there are the edges where things get more vague and the shadows where competing theories and disagreements emerge.
“Leveling” this information not only prevents a truly rounded perspective on something, but it’s ripe for abuse. When information is presented as fact without nuance, the consumer is at the mercy of whoever controls the perspective of the AI engine itself or the biases of whatever corpus of information it was training on.
The origin of information has clues to a broader context. When it’s processed, all of that context tends to collapse into itself or fade away in the face of the brighter light of clear explanation.
