> On the other hand I cannot not help thinking that this is similar to the arguments brought forward when the internet was new. How could correctness and plausibility be established if you don't have established trustworthy institutions, authors and editors behind everything?

Not long ago I had the same viewpoint as you! But thinking back now — it dates me but I definitely lived a childhood without Internet access — probably the optimistic belief before our age of "misinformation" is that, in the marketplace of ideas, the truth usually wins. Goes along with "information wants to be free" — remember that slogan?

For us that grew up learning things "the hard way" so to speak, that made perfect sense: each of us, as should have the capability to discern what is good or bad as, individual independent thinkers. Therefore, for any piece of information, there should be a high probability, in the aggregate, that it is classified correctly as to its truth and utility.

I think, that was to some extent, even a mainstream view. Here's what Bill Clinton's said in 2000 advocating to admit China to the WTO: (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/world/as...)

Now there's no question China has been trying to crack down on the Internet. Good luck! That's sort of like trying to nail jello to the wall. (Laughter.) But I would argue to you that their effort to do that just proves how real these changes are and how much they threaten the status quo. It's not an argument for slowing down the effort to bring China into the world, it's an argument for accelerating that effort. In the knowledge economy, economic innovation and political empowerment, whether anyone likes it or not, will inevitably go hand in hand.

I would say, what we have since learned after some 20 years, is that in the marketplace of ideas, the most charitable thing we can say that the memes with the "best value" win. "Best value" does not necessarily mean the highest quality, but rather there can be a trade-off between its cost and the product quality. Clearly ChatGPT produces informational content at a pretty low cost. The same can be said for junk food, compared to fresh food: the overall cost of the former is low. Junk food does not actively, directly harm you, but you are certainly better off not eating too much of it. It is low quality but has been deemed acceptable.

There are examples where we can be less charitable of course. We all complain about dangerous, poorly manufactured items (e.g. electronics with inadequate shielding etc.) listed Amazon, but clearly people still buy them anyway. And then, in the realm of politics, needless to say, there are many actors bent on pushing memes they want you to have regardless of their veracity. Some people on the marketplace of ideas "buy" them owing to network effects (e.g. whether they are acceptable according to political identity, etc.) in the same way that corporations continue to use Microsoft Windows because of network effects. We also probably say nowadays Clinton has been ultimately proven wrong by the government of China.

Survival of the "fittest" memes if you like: evolution does not make value judgements.

If you ask me, maybe our assumption of de-centralized truth-seeking was itself, not an absolute truth, to begin with. But it took years to unravel, as humans, collectively speaking, atrophy from disuse of the research and critical thinking skills before technology dropped the barriers of entry to producing and consuming information.