5 Comments

This made me think of the counterintuitive finding in historical manuscript analysis about the transition from oral history/tales to written accounts. It was long believed that writing something down, whether a genealogy or a creation myth, ensured greater fidelity and less mutability in the information or narrative contained therein.

However, analysis of manuscripts based on known dates of transition, i.e., the date that a monk or scribe first wrote down an ancient poem or record that had been passed down orally in the past, revealed the opposite: the longer a manuscript had been written down and reproduced by copying, the more variants between different versions were found.

The reason is simple once you think about it: if a bard or oral historian makes an error, it affects that one performance and is likely to be corrected in subsequent performances. But a written error is seen by everyone who reads the source document and is reproduced when the document is copied or excerpted.

Expand full comment
author

This is such a great comment, and so on point. Thanks for sharing.

Expand full comment

I’m blown away but what you’re doing. Can’t imagine many better topics to educate on. Knowledge is the only true power 🧠 Now more than ever

Expand full comment
author

Well that's very kind of you to say, Julie, thank you. I'm convinced we can make better decisions around AI if we take the time to understand how it works. Hope we continue to learn together!

Expand full comment
author

*Julia, sorry!

Expand full comment