General > General Technical Chat
AI as a tool for conspiracy videos
pcprogrammer:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 07, 2024, 06:32:34 pm ---It's certainly true that governments do lie. I do agree that laws are not the solution here. Authoritarianism tends to make the poplation more prone to conspiracy theories.
There is no fix for this. Unfortunately people will believe what they want to. The same is true for laws designed to suppress misinformation on social media. It's better to allow people to post it, then people are free to debunk it.
--- End quote ---
As we live in an overly regulated world with more laws then ever, people are already more then fed up, but allowing full freedom of speech on the internet is very very dangerous. On the one hand I'm all for freedom of speech, but one also has to bare in mind what consequences there are when posting something, and there in lies the problem. Sometimes it is hard to see why something is a problem and why some individual or larger group takes offense of it, and on the other side it is also true that some take offense to easily.
Human emotions and feelings are very complex and also kind of fashion driven. Today it is a lot about gender, so many years ago it was more about religion or race, etc. To me one thing is for sure, the human race is not capable of finding a sustainable balance, and this whole AI thing is not going to help with it either.
Zero999:
--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on March 07, 2024, 07:30:12 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 07, 2024, 06:32:34 pm ---It's certainly true that governments do lie. I do agree that laws are not the solution here. Authoritarianism tends to make the poplation more prone to conspiracy theories.
There is no fix for this. Unfortunately people will believe what they want to. The same is true for laws designed to suppress misinformation on social media. It's better to allow people to post it, then people are free to debunk it.
--- End quote ---
As we live in an overly regulated world with more laws then ever, people are already more then fed up, but allowing full freedom of speech on the internet is very very dangerous. On the one hand I'm all for freedom of speech, but one also has to bare in mind what consequences there are when posting something, and there in lies the problem. Sometimes it is hard to see why something is a problem and why some individual or larger group takes offense of it, and on the other side it is also true that some take offense to easily.
Human emotions and feelings are very complex and also kind of fashion driven. Today it is a lot about gender, so many years ago it was more about religion or race, etc. To me one thing is for sure, the human race is not capable of finding a sustainable balance, and this whole AI thing is not going to help with it either.
--- End quote ---
Offence is taken, not given.
Absolute free speech isn't allowed. Calling for violence is generally illegal, even in the freest of societies.
The problem with laws aimed at dealing with misinformation is no single authority can be trusted to be the sole arbiter of the truth. A law designed to tackle medical misinformation, say anti-vax conspiracy theories or the promotion of bogus cancer treatments, might sound good on the face of it, but the law itself has the potential to be far more dangerous, given the power of the pharmaceutical industry and how common medical reversals are. It has the potential to stop doctors from questioning the efficacy of medical treatments and raising the alarm of serious adverse safety signals.
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on March 07, 2024, 07:30:12 pm ---but allowing full freedom of speech on the internet is very very dangerous. On the one hand I'm all for freedom of speech, but one also has to bare in mind what consequences there are when posting something, and there in lies the problem.
--- End quote ---
Even if they hoodwink millions of people, publishing conspiracy theories or silly beliefs on the internet is not a fraction of the danger of restricting speech to officially sanctioned speech, based on historical precedence.
What we consider the absolutely unassailable truth today, may tomorrow reveal to be a misunderstanding or a lie. We cannot know, and it is always a possibility.
The Roman Catholic Inquisition did not find Galileo Galilei a heretic because they were evil conniving bastards; they genuinely believed they were a force for the good, and that Galileo was the bad guy, sowing misinformation among people. The exact same situation is being repeated by calling differing opinions "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories" and therefore not part of allowable speech, just because they disagree with some specific panel or subset of people. No difference at all.
I personally draw the line at defamation and promoting/suggesting crime. It is nowhere near perfect solution, but comparing to historical precendence, seems to have the best balance.
RJSV:
Funny thing is, when this thread showed up, with a truthful title and no games; I noticed I didn't get nervous / suspicious, (like sometimes, lol).
We gonna have to live with the AI, either way, it's here. I guess, people lie, and people do cultivate some protective mechanisms, to Tigger various suspicions.
I STILL suspect our local Postman, of chasing my wife.....and I'm single!
Perkele:
--- Quote from: RJSV on March 07, 2024, 08:33:46 pm --- I STILL suspect our local Postman, of chasing my wife.....and I'm single!
--- End quote ---
You're wrong. It's the milkman.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version