4 ms·

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 t

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.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - jnordwick 10y ago
      > Remember, we're talking about Google introducing fact checking Exactly. And he is saying that even if Google's fact checking works, it still doesn't equate to the piece begin unbiased or truth, Even more simply said again: You can lie with the true.
- Danylon 10y ago
  > You can't reduce fact checking to an algorithm. Can you elaborate on why you think fact-checking is beyond the capability of machines?
  - alphapapa 9y ago
    At some point the machine fact-checking relies on data input by humans. Or does the machine interpret data directly from cameras on the street to determine, e.g. that suspect A shot victim B with weapon C? Does it interpret a historical textbook and assess the veracity of its sources and claims? Or does it build a time machine to go into the past and acquire raw data to verify claimed facts?
    - Danylon 9y ago
      Thanks for elaborating. > At some point the machine fact-checking relies on data input by humans. But so does nearly every ML model? In the case of a spell checker it is using corpora made by humans. If the majority of humans start spelling words differently, then facts about the correct spellings change with them. > Or does the machine interpret data directly from cameras on the street to determine, e.g. that suspect A shot victim B with weapon C? If the military gets their way this will happen sooner than later. It is not technically infeasible to do activity detection from drone footage. > Does it interpret a historical textbook and assess the veracity of its sources and claims? Yes. Just like a journalist would when fact checking an article about WWII. > Or does it build a time machine to go into the past and acquire raw data to verify claimed facts? Raw data is both an oxymoron and a bad idea. Data is brought into existence by human-made measuring devices.

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.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    > Remember, we're talking about Google introducing fact checking Exactly. And he is saying that even if Google's fact checking works, it still doesn't equate to the piece begin unbiased or truth, Even more simply said again: You can lie with the true.
Danylon 10y ago
> You can't reduce fact checking to an algorithm. Can you elaborate on why you think fact-checking is beyond the capability of machines?
- alphapapa 9y ago
  At some point the machine fact-checking relies on data input by humans. Or does the machine interpret data directly from cameras on the street to determine, e.g. that suspect A shot victim B with weapon C? Does it interpret a historical textbook and assess the veracity of its sources and claims? Or does it build a time machine to go into the past and acquire raw data to verify claimed facts?
  - Danylon 9y ago
    Thanks for elaborating. > At some point the machine fact-checking relies on data input by humans. But so does nearly every ML model? In the case of a spell checker it is using corpora made by humans. If the majority of humans start spelling words differently, then facts about the correct spellings change with them. > Or does the machine interpret data directly from cameras on the street to determine, e.g. that suspect A shot victim B with weapon C? If the military gets their way this will happen sooner than later. It is not technically infeasible to do activity detection from drone footage. > Does it interpret a historical textbook and assess the veracity of its sources and claims? Yes. Just like a journalist would when fact checking an article about WWII. > Or does it build a time machine to go into the past and acquire raw data to verify claimed facts? Raw data is both an oxymoron and a bad idea. Data is brought into existence by human-made measuring devices.