Walter J. Ong's Orality and Literacy is an illuminating read.

One benefit of orality is that the speaker can defend or clarify their words, whereas once you've written something, your words are liable to be misinterpreted by readers without the benefit of your rebuttal.

Consider too that courts (in the US at least) prefer oral arguments than written, perhaps we consider it more difficult to lie in person than in writing. PhD defenses are another holdover of tradition, to be able to demonstrate your competence and not receive your credentials merely from your written materials.

AI, I disagree it's more like oral tradition, AI is not a speaker, it has no stake in defending its claims, I would call it hyperliterate, an emulation of everything that has been written.

> Oral tradition compared to writing is clearly less accurate.

I used to think this. Then I moved to New Mexico 6 years and had to confront the reality that the historical cultures and civilizations of this area (human habitation goes back at least 20k years) never had writing and so all history was oral.

It seemed obvious to me that writing was superior, but I reflected on the way in which even written news stories or movie reviews or travelogues are not completely accurate and sometimes actually wrong. The idea that the existence of a written historical source somehow implies (better) fidelity has become less and less convincing.

On the other hand, even if the oral histories have degenerated into actual fictions, there's that old line about "the best way to tell the truth is with fiction", and I now feel much more favorably inclined towards oral histories as perhaps at least as good, if not better, as their written cousins.