4 ms·

Imagine that this existed right before the Iraq war. If a news article said that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, how would Google's 'fact-check' algorithm work? 1. o

by trendia 10y ago

Imagine that this existed right before the Iraq war. If a news article said that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, how would Google's 'fact-check' algorithm work? 1. on the one hand, official reports suggested that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction 2. on the other hand, those reports were fabricated or based on false evidence Any 'fact checking' is limited by the information currently available to everyone. Further, not all evidence is presented equally well.

nickff 10y ago
The most interesting part of those reports is that they were not based on fabricated or false evidence. Most intelligence agencies in the world said it was very likely that Iraq had some WMDs. This brings up many questions about what methods they used for estimating the likelihood, and what should have been the minimum level of certainty to trigger a military response. For answers to the first question, I suggest you read Tetlock's masterwork on prediction, "Superforecasting". I am still unsure what the answer is to the second question.
- trendia 10y ago
  Intelligence services didn't have bad intent, they had bad intel. Specifically, they used an informant (Curveball[0]) who was later discredited. However, this still supports my argument that Google's "fact-checking" algorithm will not tell us what's true or not, it will tell us what the prevailing belief is. But that's not what people want -- they want the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
  - nickff 10y ago
    Intelligence agencies usually rely on many unreliable sources, a few reliable ones, and interpretation of publicly available data; the interesting part is how they evaluate and interpret information from these different sources, which is one of the things Tetlock addresses. I am not sure that people actually want to know what is the truth; maybe one or two percent of the voters want to know the truth, but I very much doubt the number is much higher than that. People probably want to be told that what they believe is the truth when they go to these websites. There is a great deal of work on the subject of political ignorance (and self-deception), but I recommend the recent (and very readable) book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan for its summary of current evidence, and a proposed solution.
  - handedness 10y ago
    Two issues come to mind there. The first is that some of the intel those agencies were acting on wasn't baseless. (See Operafion Avarice.) The other is that Hussein's deliberate strategy was to make the world believe he was in possession of WMDs. (Specifically Iran.) True or not, it worked. So whether it was suicide by cop using a real weapon or a realistic looking fake, it was ultimately still suicide by cop on a global scale. And the more we learn as things become declassified, the more it's looking like his position wasn't entirely a bluff. (Leaving aside the extraordinary incompetence displayed by SECDEF Rumsfeld, the WH, and numerous other senior officials.)
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      "extraordinary incompetence" This goes back to the great-great-etc grandparent. Was it actually bad intent? There were plenty of instances that certianly were, but overall?
amelius 10y ago
So there are three possible outcomes of a fact-check: "true", "false", and "don't know". Surely all three outcomes have merit. E.g. "don't know" could lead to a request for further proof.
handedness 10y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des... I suppose until 2015 it would have worked the same way fact-checking anything else classified usually does: badly.
lisivka 10y ago
Iraq used chemical weapon agains Kurdish people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program .
- trendia 10y ago
  This is true, but that was in the 80's and 90's. In the 2000's, we were told that Saddam still had WMD's and was still using them. Today the evidence suggests these claims were false.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    Saddam still had factories to produce WMD's. Stockpiling of chemicals has no sense when you can mass produce them when needed, after end of sanctions.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      The sanctions werent looking like ending anytime, and ramping up production would be visible as restocking an army is going to involve a lot of activity.

by trendia 10y ago

nickff 10y ago

The most interesting part of those reports is that they were not based on fabricated or false evidence. Most intelligence agencies in the world said it was very likely that Iraq had some WMDs. This brings up many questions about what methods they used for estimating the likelihood, and what should have been the minimum level of certainty to trigger a military response. For answers to the first question, I suggest you read Tetlock's masterwork on prediction, "Superforecasting". I am still unsure what the answer is to the second question.

trendia 10y ago
Intelligence services didn't have bad intent, they had bad intel. Specifically, they used an informant (Curveball[0]) who was later discredited. However, this still supports my argument that Google's "fact-checking" algorithm will not tell us what's true or not, it will tell us what the prevailing belief is. But that's not what people want -- they want the truth. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
- nickff 10y ago
  Intelligence agencies usually rely on many unreliable sources, a few reliable ones, and interpretation of publicly available data; the interesting part is how they evaluate and interpret information from these different sources, which is one of the things Tetlock addresses. I am not sure that people actually want to know what is the truth; maybe one or two percent of the voters want to know the truth, but I very much doubt the number is much higher than that. People probably want to be told that what they believe is the truth when they go to these websites. There is a great deal of work on the subject of political ignorance (and self-deception), but I recommend the recent (and very readable) book "Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan for its summary of current evidence, and a proposed solution.
- handedness 10y ago
  Two issues come to mind there. The first is that some of the intel those agencies were acting on wasn't baseless. (See Operafion Avarice.) The other is that Hussein's deliberate strategy was to make the world believe he was in possession of WMDs. (Specifically Iran.) True or not, it worked. So whether it was suicide by cop using a real weapon or a realistic looking fake, it was ultimately still suicide by cop on a global scale. And the more we learn as things become declassified, the more it's looking like his position wasn't entirely a bluff. (Leaving aside the extraordinary incompetence displayed by SECDEF Rumsfeld, the WH, and numerous other senior officials.)
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    "extraordinary incompetence" This goes back to the great-great-etc grandparent. Was it actually bad intent? There were plenty of instances that certianly were, but overall?

amelius 10y ago

So there are three possible outcomes of a fact-check: "true", "false", and "don't know". Surely all three outcomes have merit. E.g. "don't know" could lead to a request for further proof.

handedness 10y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_des... I suppose until 2015 it would have worked the same way fact-checking anything else classified usually does: badly.

lisivka 10y ago

Iraq used chemical weapon agains Kurdish people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program .

trendia 10y ago
This is true, but that was in the 80's and 90's. In the 2000's, we were told that Saddam still had WMD's and was still using them. Today the evidence suggests these claims were false.
- lisivka 10y ago
  Saddam still had factories to produce WMD's. Stockpiling of chemicals has no sense when you can mass produce them when needed, after end of sanctions.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    The sanctions werent looking like ending anytime, and ramping up production would be visible as restocking an army is going to involve a lot of activity.