General > General Technical Chat
AI as a tool for conspiracy videos
<< < (9/9)
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: PlainName on March 08, 2024, 11:04:59 pm ---And that's pretty much the situation with news and stuff. You'd see something on, say, the BBC and have a reasonable trust that it's not been faked.
--- End quote ---
And an absolute certainty that the angle and the snippet would match the intent of the reporter/company.

One Finnish newsroom boss publicly admitted that they "do not like publishing good people doing bad things".  If you assume any news organization today is impartial or brutally honest, you're naïve; they are not, and have never been.


--- Quote from: PlainName on March 08, 2024, 11:04:59 pm ---I think the problems with the likes of AI video and stuff are not that they fool us, but that they might fool our trusted sources.
--- End quote ---
Trust, but verify.  Do not "believe".  Build your understanding instead, based on the estimated or assumed probabilities of each assertion being true or false, and be ready to adjust these when you acquire additional data.

I have no "trusted sources".  I only have sources I care about, and a rough understanding of their biases compared to mine.  This is why I can and do read all sorts of "sources" on the net, and even listen to "wonks": I don't need to believe anything, and instead just build a network of associated details, each with a separate level of estimated reliability; there are many "nodes" in there that I believe (= currently estimate) to be complete lies constructed just to harm others.  There is no fact or claim that would "upend" my world, not even finding out we're in a simulation, or that a singular god exists or does not exist.  Everything just adjusts the set of assumptions I base my actions on.

To put it simply, I trust a left-leaning news source to describe events from their perspective relatively honestly, although if any blame is to be assigned, they will prefer to target it on the most suitable right-leaning target.  The exact same applies to right-leaning news sources and left-leaning targets.  The exact same applies if you replace the source and target with any competing pair, be they humans or companies or ideologies or religions.

If you absolutely do need trusted sources, or an authority –– and a lot of people do; their minds are just not wired like mine, and are simply different –– you need to do the comparable amount of work to verify what you trust.  There is no easy answer or free lunch here, and never has been.  Exporting that work to someone else is just giving power to an analog of an inquisition: they will then be in control of your understanding, be that for good or evil.  History just shows that just like many political models, that looks nice and easy on the surface, but in practice tends to lead to suffering and sometimes downright evil, even when instituted only with the purest of good intentions.
Zero999:

--- Quote from: PlainName on March 08, 2024, 11:04:59 pm ---And that's pretty much the situation with news and stuff. You'd see something on, say, the BBC and have a reasonable trust that it's not been faked. OTOH, the Daily Mail won't have faked stuff per se, but what they do have is 'alternative facts' for it.
--- End quote ---
I don't trust the BBC any more than the Daily Mail nowadays. There have been far too many incidents of them misreporting, twisting and failing to fact check things recently.
SiliconWizard:
First thing is, not all information you get matters to you. If some information sounds suspicious, but you actually don't need this information, just discard it and move on. It doesn't matter. Only spend time on information that actually matters to you.
I dunno, that may sound very obvious, but will by itself solve 99% of our issues with incorrect information.

We all know that these days, the war on information is striving and is completely polluted by way too many conflicts of interests. Don't try to fight the war by yourself, it's useless. Just try not to be part of a conflict of interest if you can.
Unfortunately, almost anyone who is spreading information as their main (or at least significant) source of income *has* by nature a conflict of interest. Don't *trust*, by default, anyone who's getting paid to say something.

And after you've sorted out the information you really care about, it becomes much easier to check it. Get rid of all the pollution, you won't care if this pollution is true or false.
Nominal Animal:
At some point you'll also realize that whether something is true or not has very little to do with whether people believe in it or are willing to risk the lives of others for.  Thus, follow the money, and look at further than the obvious and immediate results.
Navigation
Message Index
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod