My thoughts are mostly my implicit bias against machine automation, that giving over one's thinking to machines will only lead to you being controlled by the person who controls the machine.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)
General Discussion
12103 readers
3 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
πͺ About Lemmy World
π§ Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
π¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
- [email protected] - Note this is for more serious discussions.
- [email protected] - The opposite of the above, for more laidback chat!
- [email protected] - Into video games? Here's a place to discuss them!
- [email protected] - Watched a movie and wanna talk to others about it? Here's a place to do so!
- [email protected] - Want to talk politics apart from political news? Here's a community for that!
Rules
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
- No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with βsillyβ questions. The world wonβt be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
- Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
- Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
- No Ads/Spamming.
- No NSFW content.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, that was an interesting shift in perspective. Good point
Apart from what @AlataOrange has said, I think your "on-device model" would die of overload in its first 5 minutes of operation. Most comments are biased. Everyone has an agenda, whether they are conscious of it or not. If I want factual things, I'll read the factual things elsewhere on the internet. If I want some buttery popcorn, I'll microwave some and read the comments.
I guess it would only help for reading articles if anything. Or a comment that has a tone for informing such as "Actually, this is so and so because of so and so". But, I see your point.
So, your software would go to the link provided (if there's a link provided) and scan the text of the article for language that sounds biased. This is an interesting exercise in computer programming, but it wouldn't be useful. Imagine the biased reaction of the user that wants or does not want the article to be judged "biased" by a computer program. I could just hear people muttering to themselves, "damn algorithm." This is something software is getting better at, but it's still not reliable. Take, for example, some software from my field: The kind that detects plagiarism. When I get student papers, I have to scan them through the plagiarism detector. After that, I have to inspect the ones that were flagged as "potential plagiarism." I've had to use this type of software for over a decade, and it's still problematic. I've had situations in which I found the plagiarism and the software did not. I've had countless situations in which the software found plagiarism but there was no plagiarism. So, I don't know, your goals as a computer scientist are lofty. Still, I want you to keep your bias detecting software away from my reading in my day to day. Anyway, human beings either have the reading skills and knowledge about where to get the facts from or they do not. If they are ignorant enough to require a computer program to judge for them, they will question the software's judgment, anyway, whether it's right or wrong. Why? Everybody's got an agenda.
Yeah that is completely understandable.
I guess it's less of the standard "AI" that you may think of that simply just thinks of something and outputs something. But, has multiple preprocessing steps prior to detection and then post. So for instance, parsing an article by its sentences and analyzing the subjective statements such as "I feel great about XYZ", would be flagged, while searching for statements that either back up such Claims with Data. Such as in the standard format of "Claim, Lead-in, Data, Warrant" in writing for example. Then, checking the data source recursively until it finds it is infact valid. Now this "validity" is threatening, because yeah that can be controlled. But, there can definitely be transparent and community led approaches to adjust what source is considered valid. Without resources an initial solution would be, creating a Person graph of these sources authors and/or mapping against a database of verifiable research repos such as JSTOR, finding linked papers mentioning the same anecdotes, or simply following a trail of links, until the link hit's a trusted domain.
Then there is also the variable if all the sources were heavily weighted onto one side of the equation, where the topic can clearly have valid devil advocates/arguments. This is where bias can come in. Post processing would be finding possible "anti-arguments" to the claims and warrants (if available in there store of verifiable sources). The point is not to force a point, but to open the reader's paradigm
I see how using "fact-checking" in my OP was pretty negative/controversial. But, there's no sense of control of what is "morally right" or what is the "Capital T truth" trying to be imposed on my part as a computer scientist. I strongly agree that computer ethics need to be a focus. Seeing your perspective was a great take to keep in mind. But, the passion is mostly driven by the black-and-white culture of online opinions, hence your point about agenda.
If there's a topic that you really care about, it helps to have trusted sources who also care about it in the same way that you do. Even though that means they might share your biases, it also means that they will notice and report information that matters to your shared interests.
For example, if you have a religious or ethical injunction against eating particular foods, and you want to know whether some food product meets your requirements, you probably need information from other people who share your specific rules.
If you're kosher or vegan or locavore, you don't need some random dude's opinion about whether a particular food is kosher or vegan or locavore; some random dude might well be a troll trying to trick you into eating foreign cheeseburgers for the lulz. You need information from someone who cares about the same thing you do.
If you care about your town government's decisions β like whether there should be a new bike lane put in on one particular road β you're probably not going to get good information from a source that isn't local. And you might additionally care about whether that source is a frothing anti-cyclist maniac or a wacko "fuck cars" ideologue or an "everything the government does is thereby wrong" libertarian or something.
I don't really think this can be effectively handled by automated mechanisms tbh. If it could it might be nice, but this is tackling a social problem with a technical solution, and typically those don't really jive, in large part because the technical solutions make the mistake of supposing an original creative position of null bias or objectivity. Alternatively, they stem from a position of overestimation of one's knowledge and/or abilities related to subjects that they don't in fact know much about nor have much experience in.
For example, how would this kind of software handle a case in which the facts are not fully known yet (much less the more esoteric matter of what even makes a fact)? Similarly, how would you define a bias such that it could determine the biases, and ensure that the bias determination remained accurate over time or locality (biases are notorious for changing over time and varying by place)?
This kind of software would demand not only software/programming folks but also sociologists and philosophers for handling both surveying to assess & try to define biases as well as facts and parsing the ethical impacts of making those assessments, definitions, & determinations. You'd also probably want more specialists in fields I'm unaware of or forgetting at the moment to really thoroughly handle this kind of project. Anything less, I'd argue, would result in a blunder of a project and be rather irresponsible, to say the least.
yeah definitely agreed
From your first paragraph, was wondering (kind of, but not related to the OP). If there is an obvious variable around education that was physically experienced how can one incorporate tech (if it's their only tools available) to safely address the problem while being aware of original creative position of null bias or objectivity. Alternatively, they stem from a position of overestimation of oneβs knowledge and/or abilities related to subjects that they donβt in fact know much about nor have much experience in.. Especially when they do not have the resources to gather data at the scale needed from every sociologist/philosopher of different focus, culture/subculture. Or the ability to be a part of higher education where you might meet people of this caliber?
Edit: I guess threads like these are a way of doing it, to be honest. But, then comes that variable of verifying. I am viewing life as if it needs to be fully merit based
I think we need more education rather than relying on technology to distinguish truth from fiction.
The kind of people who believe in propoganda and don't notice dogwhistles are the same kind of people who wouldn't listen to an app or a website telling them that something they believe is false.
Yeah that is true, technology being the facilitator for teaching is still a shortcut. And a shortcut still kind of hurts the critical thinking.
A nifty thing, but it's not really addressing the actual problem. The problem with disinformation isn't that it merely exists, rather that it's shoved at such a volume by groups/people who build pseudo-credibility.
Rather than targeting individual instances of disinformation, sources should be dealt with. I think it'd be far easier and more efficient if disseminators were identified and popped a warning.
Yeah that's a great thought, focusing on the author. Like in that long thread with another user, they also identified entertaining "punditry" instead may be more useful.