Goto

Collaborating Authors

 knowledge collapse


What AI doesn't know: we could be creating a global 'knowledge collapse' Deepak Varuvel Dennison

The Guardian

What AI doesn't know: we could be creating a global'knowledge collapse' As GenAI becomes the primary way to find information, local and traditional wisdom is being lost. And we are only beginning to realise what we're missing This article was originally published as'Holes in the web' on Aeon.co A few years back, my dad was diagnosed with a tumour on his tongue - which meant we had some choices to weigh up. My family has an interesting dynamic when it comes to medical decisions. While my older sister is a trained doctor in western allopathic medicine, my parents are big believers in traditional remedies. Having grown up in a small town in India, I am accustomed to rituals. My dad had a ritual, too. Every time we visited his home village in southern Tamil Nadu, he'd get a bottle of thick, pungent, herb-infused oil from a vaithiyar, a traditional doctor practising Siddha medicine. It was his way of maintaining his connection with the kind of medicine he had always known and trusted.


Knowledge Collapse in LLMs: When Fluency Survives but Facts Fail under Recursive Synthetic Training

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

Large language models increasingly rely on synthetic data due to human-written content scarcity, yet recursive training on model-generated outputs leads to model collapse, a degenerative process threatening factual reliability. We define knowledge collapse as a distinct three-stage phenomenon where factual accuracy deteriorates while surface fluency persists, creating "confidently wrong" outputs that pose critical risks in accuracy-dependent domains. Through controlled experiments with recursive synthetic training, we demonstrate that collapse trajectory and timing depend critically on instruction format, distinguishing instruction-following collapse from traditional model collapse through its conditional, prompt-dependent nature. We propose domain-specific synthetic training as a targeted mitigation strategy that achieves substantial improvements in collapse resistance while maintaining computational efficiency. Our evaluation framework combines model-centric indicators with task-centric metrics to detect distinct degradation phases, enabling reproducible assessment of epistemic deterioration across different language models. These findings provide both theoretical insights into collapse dynamics and practical guidance for sustainable AI training in knowledge-intensive applications where accuracy is paramount.


AI and the Problem of Knowledge Collapse

arXiv.org Artificial Intelligence

While artificial intelligence has the potential to process vast amounts of data, generate new insights, and unlock greater productivity, its widespread adoption may entail unforeseen consequences. We identify conditions under which AI, by reducing the cost of access to certain modes of knowledge, can paradoxically harm public understanding. While large language models are trained on vast amounts of diverse data, they naturally generate output towards the 'center' of the distribution. This is generally useful, but widespread reliance on recursive AI systems could lead to a process we define as "knowledge collapse", and argue this could harm innovation and the richness of human understanding and culture. However, unlike AI models that cannot choose what data they are trained on, humans may strategically seek out diverse forms of knowledge if they perceive them to be worthwhile. To investigate this, we provide a simple model in which a community of learners or innovators choose to use traditional methods or to rely on a discounted AI-assisted process and identify conditions under which knowledge collapse occurs. In our default model, a 20% discount on AI-generated content generates public beliefs 2.3 times further from the truth than when there is no discount. An empirical approach to measuring the distribution of LLM outputs is provided in theoretical terms and illustrated through a specific example comparing the diversity of outputs across different models and prompting styles. Finally, based on the results, we consider further research directions to counteract such outcomes.