6 ms·

> Fact checking is like spell check. No it's not. Spell checking relies on very precise rules. Fact checking relies on assessing context and, more often than n

by zeteo 10y ago

> Fact checking is like spell check. No it's not. Spell checking relies on very precise rules. Fact checking relies on assessing context and, more often than not, the speaker's intention. For example, let's take the statement "There are 300 million people in the US". Is this false? Well, it depends where I'm going with it. If I was only relying on the figure as an approximation, I can say something like "therefore deaths from terrorism only affect 0.0x%, which is not something we should worry a lot about". This is obviously a factually valid argument, even though you might disagree with the conclusion b/c you think other facts are more relevant etc. On the other hand, my argument can also be "and there were 300 million in 2007, therefore the population has been stagnant and we need to do something about it". This is factually quite false, since the population has in fact increased by ~18M. Now should the original statement "there are 300 million people in the US" be rated true or false? A hostile fact checker may rate the first instance false, since there are actually 318+ million. A friendly fact checker will rate the second instance true b/c I obviously meant the rate of growth was low by historical standards etc.

lallysingh 10y ago
Spell checking is distance between a word and the closest word in a set. But it's not like the set of allowable spellings for words is well-defined. You generally choose a dictionary (or /usr/dict/words) and call that canonical-enough. Which dictionary you use, and whether your spelling is actually a better choice for your context than what the dictionary says aren't generally considered. Even though they do fuzz the idea of what's properly spelled. EDIT: I'm not trolling or trying to start a flame war on spellers. Just point out that almost every part of human life has some subjectivity to it.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  Note that for many languages there is an institution (often governmental) that decides what the grammar should be like, and which constructions are allowed. That English has many different language authorities, each with their own opinion is more of an anomaly.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Spell checking is distance between a word and the closest word in a set No, distance metrics might be used for suggested corrections, but spellchecking is just "is the word in the accepted list".
paulddraper 10y ago
It is color? Or colour? Should my English dictionary include "haiku"? What about "teriyaki"? "Shamisen"? Is it "Internet" or "internet"? --- Everything has some wiggle room, but both fact checking and spell checking rely on precise rules to a great exent. You just have to recognize when something is really an opinion. Many things on Politifact, etc. are inferences and conclusions composed of facts, but not facts themselves. "Aaron Burr was vice-president of the US in 1803." Fact. "The Sun convert light elements to heavier ones via fusion." Fact. "It is legal for a licensed gun owner to open-carry in California." Falsehood. "The US is in an economic depression." Too vague, can't be fact checked. "The US has lower unemployment than in 2010, and higher unemployment than in 2000." Fact.
- NiceGuy_Ty 10y ago
  Fact. Bears eat beets.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    ...Battlestar Galactica
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > "It is legal for a licensed gun owner to open-carry in California." Falsehood. Except that it is true. Well, "licensed gun owner" isn't actually a thing at all (licenses aren't needed to own guns), but the natural interpretation of it as "gun owner who also has an appropriate license" makes the statement true, it's just that there are only limited places in California where you can be appropriately licensed for open carry of handguns (counties with a population under 200,000.)
  - bmelton 10y ago
    Sorry, but that is factually incorrect. "licensed gun owner to open-carry in California", as I read it, is "a gun owner licensed to open-carry in California". Regardless, you can't get a license to open carry in California, as no such license exists, and open carry is illegal in California under California Penal Code Section 26350[1]. So, you may be able to legally carry a firearm in California, but unless you're a law enforcement, you may not carry openly. This has been adjudicated in court in Peruta v. San Diego[2], and the courts found that an outright ban on open carry for the citizenry comported with the second amendment. So, as a private citizen, you might be able to carry a firearm, but you would have to do so in a concealed fashion, and only after being licensed to do so. In order to obtain a license, you have to apply with your county sheriff, they have to evaluate whether you are of good moral character, whether you have a legitimate reason for carrying a firearm, that you have completed 16+ hours of training, and that you are a resident of their county. Noting that 'self defense' is not a valid reason for issuance, most applications are denied, though that undoubtedly varies from county to county. [1] - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=26350 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... [2] - https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722 https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=00000007...
alpha_squared 10y ago
I think this all a little besides the point and a bit of a red herring. The analogy, which is quite apt in this case (you can have fact-checking and something that is still overall misleading), much like how a spell/grammar-checker can ensure you have correct spelling & grammar and still a flawed sentence. Your comment seems to nitpick at the flaws in the analogy rather than the issue itself. No analogy is going to be perfect at describing something and will break down under enough scrutiny.
- zeteo 10y ago
  You can put spell checking into an algorithm. You can't reduce fact checking to an algorithm. How is this besides the point? The algorithm they have is "whatever websites X, Y and Z say".
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    He's not talking about the process of fact checking, like you are. OP was using the analogy to say fact checking is not enough. Here it is slightly different: just because you spell check a sentence doesn't mean it is grammatically correct. Just like: just because you fact check a document doesn't mean it is without bias. Both are necessary but not sufficient conditions.
    - zeteo 10y ago
      Remember, we're talking about Google introducing fact checking. In this context, "fact checking is not enough" is a very different position from "fact checking is subjective".
      - alpha_squared 10y ago
        Fact checking isn't subjective, though. You either do fact-checking or you don't. If you do fact-checking, you're either checking if the statement is factually correct or not. There is no real in-between and no real "this is true because I think it is." At least from a human perspective. You're right in raising the concern that from a machine perspective this is hard to achieve, but again that's a red herring to the OP.

by zeteo 10y ago

lallysingh 10y ago

Spell checking is distance between a word and the closest word in a set. But it's not like the set of allowable spellings for words is well-defined. You generally choose a dictionary (or /usr/dict/words) and call that canonical-enough. Which dictionary you use, and whether your spelling is actually a better choice for your context than what the dictionary says aren't generally considered. Even though they do fuzz the idea of what's properly spelled. EDIT: I'm not trolling or trying to start a flame war on spellers. Just point out that almost every part of human life has some subjectivity to it.

literallycancer 10y ago
Note that for many languages there is an institution (often governmental) that decides what the grammar should be like, and which constructions are allowed. That English has many different language authorities, each with their own opinion is more of an anomaly.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Spell checking is distance between a word and the closest word in a set No, distance metrics might be used for suggested corrections, but spellchecking is just "is the word in the accepted list".

paulddraper 10y ago

It is color? Or colour? Should my English dictionary include "haiku"? What about "teriyaki"? "Shamisen"? Is it "Internet" or "internet"? --- Everything has some wiggle room, but both fact checking and spell checking rely on precise rules to a great exent. You just have to recognize when something is really an opinion. Many things on Politifact, etc. are inferences and conclusions composed of facts, but not facts themselves. "Aaron Burr was vice-president of the US in 1803." Fact. "The Sun convert light elements to heavier ones via fusion." Fact. "It is legal for a licensed gun owner to open-carry in California." Falsehood. "The US is in an economic depression." Too vague, can't be fact checked. "The US has lower unemployment than in 2010, and higher unemployment than in 2000." Fact.

NiceGuy_Ty 10y ago
Fact. Bears eat beets.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  ...Battlestar Galactica
dragonwriter 10y ago
> "It is legal for a licensed gun owner to open-carry in California." Falsehood. Except that it is true. Well, "licensed gun owner" isn't actually a thing at all (licenses aren't needed to own guns), but the natural interpretation of it as "gun owner who also has an appropriate license" makes the statement true, it's just that there are only limited places in California where you can be appropriately licensed for open carry of handguns (counties with a population under 200,000.)
- bmelton 10y ago
  Sorry, but that is factually incorrect. "licensed gun owner to open-carry in California", as I read it, is "a gun owner licensed to open-carry in California". Regardless, you can't get a license to open carry in California, as no such license exists, and open carry is illegal in California under California Penal Code Section 26350[1]. So, you may be able to legally carry a firearm in California, but unless you're a law enforcement, you may not carry openly. This has been adjudicated in court in Peruta v. San Diego[2], and the courts found that an outright ban on open carry for the citizenry comported with the second amendment. So, as a private citizen, you might be able to carry a firearm, but you would have to do so in a concealed fashion, and only after being licensed to do so. In order to obtain a license, you have to apply with your county sheriff, they have to evaluate whether you are of good moral character, whether you have a legitimate reason for carrying a firearm, that you have completed 16+ hours of training, and that you are a resident of their county. Noting that 'self defense' is not a valid reason for issuance, most applications are denied, though that undoubtedly varies from county to county. [1] - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=26350 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... [2] - https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722 https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=00000007...

alpha_squared 10y ago

I think this all a little besides the point and a bit of a red herring. The analogy, which is quite apt in this case (you can have fact-checking and something that is still overall misleading), much like how a spell/grammar-checker can ensure you have correct spelling & grammar and still a flawed sentence. Your comment seems to nitpick at the flaws in the analogy rather than the issue itself. No analogy is going to be perfect at describing something and will break down under enough scrutiny.

zeteo 10y ago
You can put spell checking into an algorithm. You can't reduce fact checking to an algorithm. How is this besides the point? The algorithm they have is "whatever websites X, Y and Z say".
- jnordwick 10y ago
  He's not talking about the process of fact checking, like you are. OP was using the analogy to say fact checking is not enough. Here it is slightly different: just because you spell check a sentence doesn't mean it is grammatically correct. Just like: just because you fact check a document doesn't mean it is without bias. Both are necessary but not sufficient conditions.
  - zeteo 10y ago
    Remember, we're talking about Google introducing fact checking. In this context, "fact checking is not enough" is a very different position from "fact checking is subjective".
    - alpha_squared 10y ago
      Fact checking isn't subjective, though. You either do fact-checking or you don't. If you do fact-checking, you're either checking if the statement is factually correct or not. There is no real in-between and no real "this is true because I think it is." At least from a human perspective. You're right in raising the concern that from a machine perspective this is hard to achieve, but again that's a red herring to the OP.