> History is taught from the “bottom up.” History is typically taught as a long string of names, dates, and events. A good historian will wrap those names, dates, and events with a narrative, but sometimes even that is not done. In other words, history is taught at best as a narrative without any over-arching concepts to tie all the masses of raw data together meaningfully.
That's because historiography is currently "pre-paradigmatic" in the Kuhnian sense. There is no agreement on what the right over-arching concepts are even.
I suppose the pe-paradigmatic aspect is mostly a result of an inability to "run the experiment again" [except maybe in relation to Marxism?? :-) ] and thus little opportunity to refute less valid or appealing interpretations of the history observed or reported.
Yes, causality in history is hard because of that. But ultimately history is all we have got. If we cannot learn from history, then we cannot learn!
Fortunately, I believe that if you use the comparative method of looking at many societies across the world at the same time, it is possible to note commonalities. Unfortunately, historians typically focus on one nation and one time period. Few use the comparative method.
Agreed, but even more important is that historians are typically hostile to the concept of theory and models. That is what separates history from social science.
I guess that I am an "Applied Historian" who seeks to make the thick description of most history into an overall theory that makes the details more comprehensible and useful.
That is probably true. There certainly were a number of Marxist-inspired historians who tried to jam historical fact into Marxist thinking.
But there is a big difference between ideological-driven theories and historical-fact driven theories. The latter is how theory should work.
Just because some thinkers abuse theory as a cover for their ideology does not mean that historians should throw out the entire concept. The key is testing theories with real data from history and being willing to throw them out when they are not useful.
Having said that, I have an enormous amount of respect for historians who focus on just gathering the facts. That is probably 90% of what history should be.
I just don’t see that as the end-point in historical research. I see traditional history as the “raw data” for developing higher level theories that help us apply the lessons of his to our current problems. Otherwise, how can we learn from the past?
No, a theory of history is not an ideology. Theory is necessary in all types of intellectual inquiry. Einstein had a theory of relativity. It was not an ideology. Charles Darwin had a theory of natural selection. It was not an ideology.
Let me ask you something: Do you believe that we can learn from history?
If so, how do we do so if history is just a long string of names, dates, and events?
How do we do so without an understanding of causality?
Wow. I was going to cite the exact same paragraph that you did.
There might be some discussion as to whether a given theory/narrative or a set of facts to demontrate/support that narrative should come first. I suspect different people learn better top-down or bottom-up, just depending on their psyche. Or even a mix of both, also depending on the topic being explored.
As a child first learning about the Greeks and the Romans, I kept asking excitedly (to myself) "what happens next?!" I fear that during that child/adolescent time my exposure to history was incomplete as to both providing an overarching narrative and (given limited time among many other courses) also somewhat deficit on supporting details. For example, it was only as an adult learner that I came across criticisms of Greek life vis a vis their treatment of women; or to gain an appreciation of just what Alexander's Hellenization of the Levant really meant for native speakers, etc.
But there are two aspects of learning history I find prevalent, and I am not quite sure how to correct them:
1) Sometimes a string of people or events are cited in sequence as supporting a given narrative or joining idea, but little mention is made of the intervening time spans, which might be weeks to decades later, when "real life" continued without further impact from the "narrative". Citing that sequence makes the narrative seem even more impactful or connected/supported in hindsight than perhaps it really was.
2) When providing event or other factural evidence, it seems trying to learn history really requires that you already know much of the associated history (nearby geographic peoples, related social movements, etc.) so as to also understand how the events being presented were impacted by others' histories.
I believe that if you focus on the high-level concepts first, then it is far easier to understand the names, dates, and events.
I think research needs to be done in the following order:
1) Examine details
2) Compare those details to other societies and notice differences.
3) Develop theories that account for those similarities and what causes them.
4) Test those theories against the known details to validate that the theory is correct and useful.
5) As test theories start to reveal causality, then direct historical research in certain areas that are deemed important and useful.
6) Now test the theories with the new details to see if the theories are still valid.
7) repeat forever
In other words, always bouncing back and forth between the historical data and the theories of causality.
Teaching cannot work that way, at least not in K-12 and most universities. If you are teach US history, it should start with certain trends to orient students, and then as the names, dates and events are explainable, you can refer back to the general concepts.
This is another meaty post, with several great ideas succinctly stated. One is:
"The key to an important theory is not how detailed it is, but how useful it is.
A theory and a concept should give just the right level of specificity to be useful, but no more. The theory helps us to understand which factors are important and which are not. Theory also enables us to make falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested against the raw data."
I have found your presentation of the Five Keys to Progress and the postive feedback loops in How Progress Works to be very helpful to me in understanding and absorbing your core program.
I think that I am pretty unique on Substack in that I try to tie all my specific articles back to my overall theory. I am glad that some readers find it useful.
"Evolution (how biological lifeforms change over time) ... as well as more recent cultural evolution, which combines both biology and culture." One aspect of this combination is the observation of lactose intolerance being mitigted biologically in cultures that raised cattle; another being the Tibetan ability to breath in lowered oxygen environments at high altitude. But I perceive discussions of "cultural evolution" now really ignores that biological impact element and focuses on how ideas and memes take on a cultural life of their own, surviving "just because" or due to the social value they add for a given group of people. The biological-cultural impact might take 5 to 25 generations to be observed, while the cultural evolution sitution might cause 25 different memes to be born, live, and die, all within a given human life span. Both types of evolution are important for your discussion of progress, but I believe recognizing this type of distinction is also important.
"I might also consider Human Psychology as a fundamental constraint, although I consider psychology to be a sub-set of biology. It is important, however, to understand that biological constraints work upon our bodies as well as our brains." Or on our brains as well as our bodies. That many elements of our psychology must result from biological/genetic evolution is something that is not as widely recognized or discussed as it should be. But one aspect of our larger and larger brains and greater number of synaptic connections (10^15 or more?) seems to be something that is "emergent" from that complexity, but still retains a "materialistic/ physical" source. At a minimum this appears to be the case for our consciousness (and maybe our conscience). That complexity has also clearly led to the wide variety of cutures across the globe, and their respective meme evolution.
Yes, I agree that people often misuse the term "Cultural Evolution" and only focus on non-biological factors. I think the inventors of the term are partially to blame because it does not include genetics in the term. I prefer the term "culture-gene coevolution" as this makes it far more clear.
"How you teach a topic is not the same as how you research the same topic." This is especially the case in the STEM fields. Once the core principles have been elucidated by either accidental or planned experimentation, those ideas are plugged into the textbooks, starting with the higher level post graduate to college to K-12 levels. I saw this in the treatments of genetics in biology classes, between my becoming aware of these topics mostly post HS, while my daughter's biology class material incorporated much of what had previously been college level material. [I suspect that trend is now reversing or reversed].
But once you have learned the material in a logically developed way, I think there is also benefit in going back and exploring that developmental history or sequence and dependency. Some ideas and topics just cannot be seen or evaluated without prior foundational material or ideas being in common understanding.
Interesting side note. I just asked Deepseek to critique your theories. It is certainly familiar with your writing, and at least a few of the concerns were reasonable and interesting. A few were imo gross oversimplifications (such as incorrectly suggesting you believe progress is inevitable). Have you played around with these AI apps yet?
I only use ChatGPT for occasional fact-checking when I cannot find what I need via search engines.
A few months ago I asked ChatGPT about the Five Keys to Progress, and it gave me back garbage. It really looked like it just made something up without attribution. It was bizarre.
Then I copied and pasted a few articles that explained my theories, and it seemed to get it. Unfortunately, my theories were only in its short-term memory so it forgot everything the next day. I toyed around with uploading my entire books into ChatGPT, but it required a paid membership, so I gave up.
I would consider trying again if I do not have to pay for it.
Michael Magoon's theory of progress, as outlined in his book *"The Progress Paradox"*, argues that despite widespread pessimism, humanity has made significant advancements in areas like health, wealth, and technology. However, his optimistic view of progress has faced criticism and rebuttals from various perspectives. Here are some of the major rebuttals to his theory:
---
### 1. **Inequality and Distribution of Progress**
- **Rebuttal**: Critics argue that while global averages may show progress, the benefits are unevenly distributed. Wealth, health, and technological advancements are often concentrated in wealthy nations or among elite groups, leaving large portions of the global population behind.
- **Example**: While global poverty rates have declined, income inequality within many countries has increased, leading to social and economic disparities.
---
### 2. **Environmental Degradation**
- **Rebuttal**: Progress in industrialization and technology has come at a significant cost to the environment. Climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss are critical issues that Magoon's theory may downplay.
- **Example**: The rise in carbon emissions and plastic pollution contradicts the idea of sustainable progress.
---
### 3. **Quality of Life vs. Material Progress**
- **Rebuttal**: Critics argue that material progress (e.g., GDP growth, technological innovation) does not necessarily translate to improved quality of life. Issues like mental health crises, loneliness, and stress are on the rise in developed countries.
- **Example**: Despite higher incomes and better technology, many people report feeling less happy or fulfilled.
---
### 4. **Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Risks**
- **Rebuttal**: Magoon's focus on historical progress may overlook long-term risks posed by current trends, such as nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, or geopolitical instability.
- **Example**: Technological advancements like AI and biotechnology could lead to unintended consequences that undermine progress.
---
### 5. **Cultural and Social Regression**
- **Rebuttal**: While material conditions may have improved, some argue that there has been cultural or social regression in areas like political polarization, erosion of democratic norms, or loss of community cohesion.
- **Example**: The rise of authoritarianism and populism in some parts of the world challenges the idea of linear progress.
---
### 6. **Measurement Bias**
- **Rebuttal**: Magoon's theory relies heavily on quantitative metrics (e.g., life expectancy, GDP), which may not capture the full picture of human well-being. Qualitative aspects like freedom, justice, and happiness are harder to measure but are equally important.
- **Example**: A country may have high GDP but poor human rights records, raising questions about the true nature of progress.
---
### 7. **Historical Context and Survivorship Bias**
- **Rebuttal**: Critics argue that Magoon's theory may suffer from survivorship bias, focusing on successful societies while ignoring those that have collapsed or regressed due to war, famine, or other crises.
- **Example**: The collapse of civilizations like the Roman Empire or the Mayans suggests that progress is not inevitable.
---
### 8. **Ethical and Moral Concerns**
- **Rebuttal**: Some argue that progress in technology and wealth has not been matched by progress in ethics or morality. Issues like systemic racism, exploitation, and human rights abuses persist despite material advancements.
- **Example**: The use of technology for surveillance or warfare raises ethical questions about the direction of progress.
---
### 9. **Over-Reliance on Averages**
- **Rebuttal**: Magoon's use of global averages can mask significant regional or local disparities. For example, while life expectancy has increased globally, certain regions still suffer from high mortality rates due to poverty or conflict.
- **Example**: Sub-Saharan Africa continues to face challenges like HIV/AIDS and malnutrition, despite global progress in health.
---
### 10. **Complacency and Ignoring Ongoing Challenges**
- **Rebuttal**: By emphasizing past progress, Magoon's theory may lead to complacency, discouraging efforts to address ongoing challenges like poverty, disease, and inequality.
- **Example**: Declining global poverty rates should not overshadow the fact that millions still live in extreme poverty.
---
### Conclusion:
While Michael Magoon's theory of progress highlights significant achievements in human history, these rebuttals underscore the complexity and nuance of measuring progress. Critics argue that a narrow focus on material and technological advancements overlooks critical issues like inequality, environmental sustainability, and ethical concerns. A balanced view of progress must consider both the benefits and the challenges that come with it.
This is a ridiculous answer in my mind. It does not explain the basics of my theory, and I have no idea where the “rebuttals” come from. I seriously doubt that it actually came from people who read my book, so how could they be rebuttals?
It is particularly disturbing that the rebuttals are 10x the length as the description of the book. DeepSeek seems to be programmed to convince you that I am incorrect even though you did not ask.
This does not give me confidence in it at all. Anything less than 95% accurate is worse than nothing as I do not know which 5% is incorrect.
I think we would agree that this gets some things wrong and oversimplifies, but, it is starting to shape up as a useful service, and I think it is now less than a week old.
Deepseek is one of the top apps on Apple now. I downloaded the interface in one minute and have asked it a bunch of questions, from medical, to gardening, to economic to restaurant recommendations. Wow!
As I ask it more in depth questions, it does seem to be hallucinating. It starts with some of your ideas and seems to jump to generic ideas that are related.
> History is taught in the opposite way.
> History is taught from the “bottom up.” History is typically taught as a long string of names, dates, and events. A good historian will wrap those names, dates, and events with a narrative, but sometimes even that is not done. In other words, history is taught at best as a narrative without any over-arching concepts to tie all the masses of raw data together meaningfully.
That's because historiography is currently "pre-paradigmatic" in the Kuhnian sense. There is no agreement on what the right over-arching concepts are even.
I suppose the pe-paradigmatic aspect is mostly a result of an inability to "run the experiment again" [except maybe in relation to Marxism?? :-) ] and thus little opportunity to refute less valid or appealing interpretations of the history observed or reported.
Yes, causality in history is hard because of that. But ultimately history is all we have got. If we cannot learn from history, then we cannot learn!
Fortunately, I believe that if you use the comparative method of looking at many societies across the world at the same time, it is possible to note commonalities. Unfortunately, historians typically focus on one nation and one time period. Few use the comparative method.
Agreed, but even more important is that historians are typically hostile to the concept of theory and models. That is what separates history from social science.
I guess that I am an "Applied Historian" who seeks to make the thick description of most history into an overall theory that makes the details more comprehensible and useful.
> Agreed, but even more important is that historians are typically hostile to the concept of theory and models.
As a reaction against "theory and model" historians' tendency to beat the facts into like with their theories.
That is probably true. There certainly were a number of Marxist-inspired historians who tried to jam historical fact into Marxist thinking.
But there is a big difference between ideological-driven theories and historical-fact driven theories. The latter is how theory should work.
Just because some thinkers abuse theory as a cover for their ideology does not mean that historians should throw out the entire concept. The key is testing theories with real data from history and being willing to throw them out when they are not useful.
Having said that, I have an enormous amount of respect for historians who focus on just gathering the facts. That is probably 90% of what history should be.
I just don’t see that as the end-point in historical research. I see traditional history as the “raw data” for developing higher level theories that help us apply the lessons of his to our current problems. Otherwise, how can we learn from the past?
> But there is a big difference between ideological-driven theories and historical-fact driven theories.
A "theory of history" is almost by definition an ideology.
It tends to turn into a Russel conjugation: "My theory of history is facts-driven, your theory is ideological".
No, a theory of history is not an ideology. Theory is necessary in all types of intellectual inquiry. Einstein had a theory of relativity. It was not an ideology. Charles Darwin had a theory of natural selection. It was not an ideology.
Let me ask you something: Do you believe that we can learn from history?
If so, how do we do so if history is just a long string of names, dates, and events?
How do we do so without an understanding of causality?
How do you know causality without theory?
> Let me ask you something: Do you believe that we can learn from history?
Yes. Ideology does not necessarily mean false.
Wow. I was going to cite the exact same paragraph that you did.
There might be some discussion as to whether a given theory/narrative or a set of facts to demontrate/support that narrative should come first. I suspect different people learn better top-down or bottom-up, just depending on their psyche. Or even a mix of both, also depending on the topic being explored.
As a child first learning about the Greeks and the Romans, I kept asking excitedly (to myself) "what happens next?!" I fear that during that child/adolescent time my exposure to history was incomplete as to both providing an overarching narrative and (given limited time among many other courses) also somewhat deficit on supporting details. For example, it was only as an adult learner that I came across criticisms of Greek life vis a vis their treatment of women; or to gain an appreciation of just what Alexander's Hellenization of the Levant really meant for native speakers, etc.
But there are two aspects of learning history I find prevalent, and I am not quite sure how to correct them:
1) Sometimes a string of people or events are cited in sequence as supporting a given narrative or joining idea, but little mention is made of the intervening time spans, which might be weeks to decades later, when "real life" continued without further impact from the "narrative". Citing that sequence makes the narrative seem even more impactful or connected/supported in hindsight than perhaps it really was.
2) When providing event or other factural evidence, it seems trying to learn history really requires that you already know much of the associated history (nearby geographic peoples, related social movements, etc.) so as to also understand how the events being presented were impacted by others' histories.
I believe that if you focus on the high-level concepts first, then it is far easier to understand the names, dates, and events.
I think research needs to be done in the following order:
1) Examine details
2) Compare those details to other societies and notice differences.
3) Develop theories that account for those similarities and what causes them.
4) Test those theories against the known details to validate that the theory is correct and useful.
5) As test theories start to reveal causality, then direct historical research in certain areas that are deemed important and useful.
6) Now test the theories with the new details to see if the theories are still valid.
7) repeat forever
In other words, always bouncing back and forth between the historical data and the theories of causality.
Teaching cannot work that way, at least not in K-12 and most universities. If you are teach US history, it should start with certain trends to orient students, and then as the names, dates and events are explainable, you can refer back to the general concepts.
This is another meaty post, with several great ideas succinctly stated. One is:
"The key to an important theory is not how detailed it is, but how useful it is.
A theory and a concept should give just the right level of specificity to be useful, but no more. The theory helps us to understand which factors are important and which are not. Theory also enables us to make falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested against the raw data."
I have found your presentation of the Five Keys to Progress and the postive feedback loops in How Progress Works to be very helpful to me in understanding and absorbing your core program.
Glad that you find it useful.
I think that I am pretty unique on Substack in that I try to tie all my specific articles back to my overall theory. I am glad that some readers find it useful.
"Evolution (how biological lifeforms change over time) ... as well as more recent cultural evolution, which combines both biology and culture." One aspect of this combination is the observation of lactose intolerance being mitigted biologically in cultures that raised cattle; another being the Tibetan ability to breath in lowered oxygen environments at high altitude. But I perceive discussions of "cultural evolution" now really ignores that biological impact element and focuses on how ideas and memes take on a cultural life of their own, surviving "just because" or due to the social value they add for a given group of people. The biological-cultural impact might take 5 to 25 generations to be observed, while the cultural evolution sitution might cause 25 different memes to be born, live, and die, all within a given human life span. Both types of evolution are important for your discussion of progress, but I believe recognizing this type of distinction is also important.
"I might also consider Human Psychology as a fundamental constraint, although I consider psychology to be a sub-set of biology. It is important, however, to understand that biological constraints work upon our bodies as well as our brains." Or on our brains as well as our bodies. That many elements of our psychology must result from biological/genetic evolution is something that is not as widely recognized or discussed as it should be. But one aspect of our larger and larger brains and greater number of synaptic connections (10^15 or more?) seems to be something that is "emergent" from that complexity, but still retains a "materialistic/ physical" source. At a minimum this appears to be the case for our consciousness (and maybe our conscience). That complexity has also clearly led to the wide variety of cutures across the globe, and their respective meme evolution.
Yes, I agree that people often misuse the term "Cultural Evolution" and only focus on non-biological factors. I think the inventors of the term are partially to blame because it does not include genetics in the term. I prefer the term "culture-gene coevolution" as this makes it far more clear.
"How you teach a topic is not the same as how you research the same topic." This is especially the case in the STEM fields. Once the core principles have been elucidated by either accidental or planned experimentation, those ideas are plugged into the textbooks, starting with the higher level post graduate to college to K-12 levels. I saw this in the treatments of genetics in biology classes, between my becoming aware of these topics mostly post HS, while my daughter's biology class material incorporated much of what had previously been college level material. [I suspect that trend is now reversing or reversed].
But once you have learned the material in a logically developed way, I think there is also benefit in going back and exploring that developmental history or sequence and dependency. Some ideas and topics just cannot be seen or evaluated without prior foundational material or ideas being in common understanding.
Interesting side note. I just asked Deepseek to critique your theories. It is certainly familiar with your writing, and at least a few of the concerns were reasonable and interesting. A few were imo gross oversimplifications (such as incorrectly suggesting you believe progress is inevitable). Have you played around with these AI apps yet?
I have never used or even heard of DeepSeek.
I only use ChatGPT for occasional fact-checking when I cannot find what I need via search engines.
A few months ago I asked ChatGPT about the Five Keys to Progress, and it gave me back garbage. It really looked like it just made something up without attribution. It was bizarre.
Then I copied and pasted a few articles that explained my theories, and it seemed to get it. Unfortunately, my theories were only in its short-term memory so it forgot everything the next day. I toyed around with uploading my entire books into ChatGPT, but it required a paid membership, so I gave up.
I would consider trying again if I do not have to pay for it.
Michael Magoon's theory of progress, as outlined in his book *"The Progress Paradox"*, argues that despite widespread pessimism, humanity has made significant advancements in areas like health, wealth, and technology. However, his optimistic view of progress has faced criticism and rebuttals from various perspectives. Here are some of the major rebuttals to his theory:
---
### 1. **Inequality and Distribution of Progress**
- **Rebuttal**: Critics argue that while global averages may show progress, the benefits are unevenly distributed. Wealth, health, and technological advancements are often concentrated in wealthy nations or among elite groups, leaving large portions of the global population behind.
- **Example**: While global poverty rates have declined, income inequality within many countries has increased, leading to social and economic disparities.
---
### 2. **Environmental Degradation**
- **Rebuttal**: Progress in industrialization and technology has come at a significant cost to the environment. Climate change, deforestation, and biodiversity loss are critical issues that Magoon's theory may downplay.
- **Example**: The rise in carbon emissions and plastic pollution contradicts the idea of sustainable progress.
---
### 3. **Quality of Life vs. Material Progress**
- **Rebuttal**: Critics argue that material progress (e.g., GDP growth, technological innovation) does not necessarily translate to improved quality of life. Issues like mental health crises, loneliness, and stress are on the rise in developed countries.
- **Example**: Despite higher incomes and better technology, many people report feeling less happy or fulfilled.
---
### 4. **Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Risks**
- **Rebuttal**: Magoon's focus on historical progress may overlook long-term risks posed by current trends, such as nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, or geopolitical instability.
- **Example**: Technological advancements like AI and biotechnology could lead to unintended consequences that undermine progress.
---
### 5. **Cultural and Social Regression**
- **Rebuttal**: While material conditions may have improved, some argue that there has been cultural or social regression in areas like political polarization, erosion of democratic norms, or loss of community cohesion.
- **Example**: The rise of authoritarianism and populism in some parts of the world challenges the idea of linear progress.
---
### 6. **Measurement Bias**
- **Rebuttal**: Magoon's theory relies heavily on quantitative metrics (e.g., life expectancy, GDP), which may not capture the full picture of human well-being. Qualitative aspects like freedom, justice, and happiness are harder to measure but are equally important.
- **Example**: A country may have high GDP but poor human rights records, raising questions about the true nature of progress.
---
### 7. **Historical Context and Survivorship Bias**
- **Rebuttal**: Critics argue that Magoon's theory may suffer from survivorship bias, focusing on successful societies while ignoring those that have collapsed or regressed due to war, famine, or other crises.
- **Example**: The collapse of civilizations like the Roman Empire or the Mayans suggests that progress is not inevitable.
---
### 8. **Ethical and Moral Concerns**
- **Rebuttal**: Some argue that progress in technology and wealth has not been matched by progress in ethics or morality. Issues like systemic racism, exploitation, and human rights abuses persist despite material advancements.
- **Example**: The use of technology for surveillance or warfare raises ethical questions about the direction of progress.
---
### 9. **Over-Reliance on Averages**
- **Rebuttal**: Magoon's use of global averages can mask significant regional or local disparities. For example, while life expectancy has increased globally, certain regions still suffer from high mortality rates due to poverty or conflict.
- **Example**: Sub-Saharan Africa continues to face challenges like HIV/AIDS and malnutrition, despite global progress in health.
---
### 10. **Complacency and Ignoring Ongoing Challenges**
- **Rebuttal**: By emphasizing past progress, Magoon's theory may lead to complacency, discouraging efforts to address ongoing challenges like poverty, disease, and inequality.
- **Example**: Declining global poverty rates should not overshadow the fact that millions still live in extreme poverty.
---
### Conclusion:
While Michael Magoon's theory of progress highlights significant achievements in human history, these rebuttals underscore the complexity and nuance of measuring progress. Critics argue that a narrow focus on material and technological advancements overlooks critical issues like inequality, environmental sustainability, and ethical concerns. A balanced view of progress must consider both the benefits and the challenges that come with it.
This is a ridiculous answer in my mind. It does not explain the basics of my theory, and I have no idea where the “rebuttals” come from. I seriously doubt that it actually came from people who read my book, so how could they be rebuttals?
It is particularly disturbing that the rebuttals are 10x the length as the description of the book. DeepSeek seems to be programmed to convince you that I am incorrect even though you did not ask.
This does not give me confidence in it at all. Anything less than 95% accurate is worse than nothing as I do not know which 5% is incorrect.
I think we would agree that this gets some things wrong and oversimplifies, but, it is starting to shape up as a useful service, and I think it is now less than a week old.
Deepseek is one of the top apps on Apple now. I downloaded the interface in one minute and have asked it a bunch of questions, from medical, to gardening, to economic to restaurant recommendations. Wow!
As I ask it more in depth questions, it does seem to be hallucinating. It starts with some of your ideas and seems to jump to generic ideas that are related.
So then how does a use know when it is “hallucinating” and when it is accurate. I am not at all impressed with what you showed.
At the very least it should be able to directly quote summaries that I wrote in my own book. That is simple copy/paste.
Wikipedia is far better.
But on the other hand, it gets the name of your book wrong. So, it still needs development.
That is particularly disturbing. If it cannot get the title right, then I have little confidence in the rest.