2 ms·
> But that is what you're suggesting No, it isn't. I've said repeatedly they'd be much more accurate than humans, and much less biased than humans. You keep t
by DaUR 10y ago
> But that is what you're suggesting
No, it isn't. I've said repeatedly they'd be much more accurate than humans, and much less biased than humans.
You keep taking a black-and-white version of my arguments, arguing against that, and moving the goalposts. I'm not sure you're debating in good faith.
- vertex-four 10y agoThe alternative is that you wind up with multiple AIs with different biases, people pick the ones that match their own biases, and we're not much better off. One presents stories about how drug users are unlikely to be convicted of violent crime, the other presents stories about how drug use leads to unsafe workplaces and road accidents. Both factually correct - like almost all news today - and both playing into people's biases and not solving the question of "do we legalise weed?" at all.
- DaUR 10y agoYou're arguing that AI will lead to much more nuanced discourse, and much more complex and detailed pros and cons rather than the ruffian binary polarization we have now, and I agree.
- vertex-four 10y agoNo, it'll be the exact same binary polarization. One side keeps arguing "weed doesn't lead to violent crime" and the other side keeps arguing "but look at all the ways it does harm people", because that's the news stories they've each chosen to see, exactly the same as any discussion I've had on the subject to date.
- vertex-four 10y agoThe issue with journalism isn't people outright lying. It's quite rarely a failure to understand the problem space either. It's framing the discussion in a certain way and picking and choosing which facts to prevent. Having multiple AIs which pick out different things to tell their readers doesn't solve that problem at all.