- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
An AI-powered fact-checking system embedded directly into posts.
🤢
Funny timeline we live in
The alternative is Facebook with lies that go unchecked completely. This is actually an area where AI is not bad.
edit: sigh. Refusing to acknowledge where things can be useful. NO, ALL BAD. BAD BAD BAD! AI BAD! ALWAYS BAD! NO USE! NO GOOD! ONLY BAD! BAD BAD BAD! Such fucking blindness.
“Correcting” incorrect information with more incorrect information doesn’t improve the situation.
AI tools are inherently unreliable because of the randomness in their text generation algorithms.
And worse, Europe doesn’t build its own AIs. LLM fact checking would have to be done by Grok or Claude or some other product from big American tech. And there’s an obvious problem with a social media network trying to avoid American censorship and political bias and corporate domination but “fact checking” with a tool that has American censorship and political bias and corporate domination built into it.
And on a personal level, I don’t want to use a social media site that has a bot scanning my posts and flagging them for wrongspeak - or that interjects automated bot opinions into conversations between humans. I use social media to talk to other human beings, not bots, thanks. If I wanted to know what chatGPT thinks of a post I’d fucking ask chatGPT.
I doubt it, honestly. It’d likely catch a lot of misinfo, yes, but it would likely also classify any new findings that run counter to previous assumptions as misinfo. LLMs can’t keep up to date. And they still have the same issue that whoever trains them gets to decide what is and isn’t misinfo, which starts being a problem when it’s an ubiquitous social media site.
The system that is notorious for lying being used for fact checking. Yea maybe you should write “bad” in caps lock one more time, that will make you right.
just because it is a solution doesn’t mean its a good solution or even better than no solution
If i’s implemented the right way, it could be. AI can be used for good things even if the knee-jerk reaction of so many people online is to equate it with crap.
Recoiling upon smelling shit is also a kneejerk reaction
its always this same bullshit, “if we just implemented this correctly” where can an AI participate in fact-checking? It can’t be trusted because of hallucinations, so the solution would be to uh… manually review everything it does? just rely on third parties to do it? What ACTUAL USE does this shit have?
It couldn’t be. Lying bias machine that gives people psychosis can’t magically stop being what it is. So it will always be terrible and unnecessary at best, harmful at regular.
I mean, there’s always Lemmy.
People don’t really care about anything other than convenience. Twitter could be grinding up puppies live on camera and most people would just shrug and be like “well the good memes are here”.
Personally I think that’s downstream from how we’re all too polite about shit like this. We just smile and change the topic instead of doing the intensely uncomfortable “You really shouldn’t use twitter” conversation. But also we’re all too… childish, I guess, because most people if someone says that will not respond with “You make a good point and I will change in accordance,” but rather with “Fuck you for saying things that make me feel bad. You suck. I’m not listening to anything you say.”
So I guess we’re fucked because people are immature, fragile, little shits.
It isn’t normal for human beings to modify their behavior because someone scolded them about it in a rational way, especially when popular approval is still on the side of doing what they are doing, but that doesn’t mean there is nothing that moves the needle on people changing their behavior. You need positive reinforcement when they do something else instead, and stuff like that.
I think there is a fatigue. Morally, I can’t justify eating animal products, but I do eat cheese and drink milk. I should take the bus instead of driving, but sometimes I use my car out of convenience. Chocolate means exploiting workers in some country. Etc. People see the world burning and feel powerless.
Yeah, that could be some of it. We can’t all be perfect all the time. It’s impossible.
I’d appreciate more honest appraisals, though. “I know Twitter is garbage run by a Nazi, but I got linked to it and scrolled a bit” is far better than “well other people are worse so who cares”. There’s this childish whataboutism that a lot of people bring out to justify their poor behavior.
I agree, honesty is a good first step. So, given all this, should we focus on simply being the more attractive option? Or a combination of principles and convenience? If the good option is cheaper or more convenient, we wouldn’t strictly need principles and moral arguments. I’m just thinking of strategy here, it can feel good to be a righteous preacher, but what actually gets us the results we want?
I don’t know. A coworker years ago said to me “you have to make what you want people to do the easy thing”, and I think he was right. But someone still has to do work. Back then, it was me changing the deploy script to automatically run tests and open the report so people had to go out of their way to skip all that.
I’m not sure what that looks like for the fediverse. Linking them directly? Some sort of “sign up with Google” SSO mechanism? Just make the account for your friend and give it to them?
Ideally we’d go up one level and address why people are so mentally depleted they can’t handle a sign up form.
true enough, do what you can and vote wisely to try and change the political landscape is where at.
Outside of that let the edgelords condemn us for being the problem
That said, some values can be normalized if others see you doing it, like cycling etc.
I’m guilty a bit of this myself. For a long time I’ve been down the rabbit hole with iOS vs Android, especially since Google is adamant on closing it more and more making it harder for custom ROMs to be developed. Basically if you want the current patches and have everything working (payment, camera, banking apps) you have to use one of them.
For apps is also a cultural thing. If you want to stay up to date with Japanese news, X is the most used platform there, for better or worse. There are no other corespondent accounts on other platforms. Recently they started to discover Instagram…I sincerely doubt they’ll join these kind of decentralized passwords.
Most of the people don’t want to be convinced. They come adamant that they won’t change their opinion. And no matter what we do, it won’t be changed. I’m surprised that with the whole US-Wordlwide tensions, people would prefer non-US alternatives. Seems I was wrong
Most of the people don’t want to be convinced. They come adamant that they won’t change their opinion
I link this comic a lot but I think it’s often relevant: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe
Basically, people don’t believe things or accept facts that conflict with their emotions.
if the problem is that major platforms are centralized, opaque, and controlled by corporations, why would the solution be yet another centralized platform controlled by a corporation?
Because people are brainwashed into only trusting billionaires, corporations, brand names, and consumer packaged goods to solve all our problems.
In this case, I think it’s target user isn’t looking to get out from under the billionaires and corpos, just the American billionaires and corpos. That’s who eyou is designed to appeal to.
The tiny number of people who are anti billionaire and corpos-run social media regardless of nationality already have our very tiny corner carved out.
Yup. Sadly it is what it is. I kind of expected a push for the defederalized solutions in the current cirtumstances
Sadly this is the truth
The problem is building the network. Nobody uses it because nobody uses it and nobody will use it until everybody uses it.
That has always been and will always be the primary problem. You can solve all of the other problems and it won’t matter.
It used to be easier to spread the word when there weren’t so many alternatives, to be honest. Right now, I’m not sure how to convince people.
I disagree. This has been a thing for 20+ years. Facebook started out the same way. So did reddit. That’s one reason the founders of reddit created mulitple accounts to post from at first - to make the network look larger than it was.
I’ve joined several networks over the years that didn’t pan out. The one I remember from a few years ago was Imzy. Good platform, just didn’t take off.
Alternatives are great if only people were using them.
I have a hard time understanding why people are so hard headed on not leaving
The network effect is one reason, if users are responsible for the content then there will be a shortage of content until enough users join.
Beyond that, humans are social creatures and want to fit in. If your community mainly hangs out on one platform, people will want to be a part of that platform. What helps is if people with a large enough following or entire communities make the decision to change platform, but that can be tricky.
A classical sign of an early worldcentric worldview that is more about competition than about collaboration. A level “orange” in Integral theory. But humankind is continuing its development to late worldcentric worldview “green” level and more. And Fediverse is helping with that!
Tf does that mean
I’m more concerned that apparently 6 people read that and then not only A. understood it but B. agreed with it.
You and me both
According to Ken Wilber, Bill Clinton said that the problem of Middle East is that less than 2% of world population is integral (on the integral level of consciousness). So it would be nice if more people would understand than and agree.
I have seen posts and replies from people that say they upvote almost everything. this is why I find public voting as useless. I like the thought of the sytem using my votes for a view but since everyone votes differently I find community voting to be useless.
That’s… the wrong way to look at it.
Systems are often resiliant in the light of individual variation. Discarding voting entirely because of the actions of a few is like seeing the outliers in people clicking where they think a country is on a map. Sure, you’ll see a lot of dumb guesses that are radically incorrect, but the majority of clicks tend to be on the country.
In the same way, the voting tends to generally work, for a given understanding that voting was always theoretically (from reddit days) supposed to be upvoting good contributions and downvoting spam./trolls/etc, but voting is also or even more about what people agree with. So as long as you realize that’s what’s actually happening, voting is generally accurate enough.
Of course it’s infuriating when people agree with things that are wrong, but that is a wholly different issue.
I mean I know the studies and I think it was a thing but I have found it does not work very often in many systems like this on the internet and the issues we have with voting. Its funny because I recently read a thing by lucien greaves and it really scratch my itch on that. He called it emergent stupidity. His basic thing is that estimates must be free from influence and coercion, and derived from a diversity of opinions. Now I would include that influence and coercion is often part of gaming the system. Something we see often. Also things like the bean guessing everyone is doing it in basically the same way. Guessing a specific number it might be. As I said people do not apply the same principles with the voting system. If everyone voted based on their actual opinion or did not vote at all it would likely be useful and I think we saw that at one point early on like with slashdot. If some upvote everything and some downvote everything you would think it would cancel but I don’t think it does partiailly because of the fractured nature of this medium. Some topics will have hoards of upvoters and some downvoters. That is even before you take into account the ones trying to game. So again personally I would prefer none of it and just have the sytem use what I have put into it. Ironically if the system was done that way were peoples voting effected an algorith for only their feed. So their choices only effected them. That would actually be useful on a population level but the moment it was known it was being used for that it would start down the same hole of people not voting for themselves but for their percieved effect on others.
Ohhhh, it’s woo.
eYou? No! eMe!
Unless we can increase our mental loads, more of anything doesn’t really work.
Lemmy is the thing I’ll use until there’s new protocols that focus on privacy or something else.
I wish more people would see things like this
Somebody should really rehaul the Lemmy logo
I think it looks rather nice
What would you suggest?
Be another digg exit scam
We will have to see about that
