3 ms·

I generally agree with the article that people get too caught up in imaging sci fi deepfakes incidents swaying entire populations, when the economy of beliefs i

I generally agree with the article that people get too caught up in imaging sci fi deepfakes incidents swaying entire populations, when the economy of beliefs is way more complex than that. People have been able to fake photos for a hundred years, and yet fake photos aren't commonly sparking national emergencies. It's not because photos aren't sufficiently lifelike, it's because the ways we validate that information are very straightforward. Photographer and subjects mysteriously unavailable for follow-up questions? Huh. Meanwhile, people thrive on validating misinformation. TFA is right this is a psychological problem not a technical one. In the 1951 study "They Saw a Game," students supporting each side of a football match counted a different number of infractions and reported referee bias in opposite directions. Key takeaway: It is impossible to have a neutral arbiter that is also perceived as neutral. That's why even the most innocuous filtering and sorting algorithm is accused of pushing a bias by interest groups. If you have the AP cryptographically sign "real" news, the only thing that will do is sentence the AP to allegations of bias. And this isn't that new. Journalism in the US used to not even bother trying to be objective. Papers would have Republican or Democrat in their name. Political Reddit threads, rabble rousing echo chambers that they are, are also a reversion to the mean. This may be intractable, but I think our best hope is greater education about cognitive biases, to give people the language to discuss biases with each other that's more clinical and less charged, and to help people recognize the most common traps. Or maybe just know this is an old problem and just hang on for dear life.

wickerman 7y ago
Yeah, my whole impression while reading this article was "why try to solve a non-technological problem using technology?" If the over abundance of information is just reinforcing existing psychological issues with humans then humans have to either get over these issues or reduce the exposure to information.
- smallnamespace 7y ago
  How are you going to reach people nowadays, except via technology? Also, we're pretty much on a timer right now to get things right on at least climate change policy. We don't have the luxury of 30 years, or even a decade, to 'get over these issues'. You can simultaneously believe that 'all the kinks with new technologies got worked out eventually' and 'it really sucked for the ones who didn't survive the transition'
- w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago
  We cure cancer, which is biological issue, with chimical means, and so coming from technological advance. That said, that doesn't means we have the technological means to solve problems posed by fake news and radicalization of opinion. Regulation is probably the key, even if it means policing the web. The problem here is fake news can comes from everywhere and is not restricted from coming from countries outside the national intended audience where national regulating instance have no influence. An international watchdog has to be formed.
raxxorrax 7y ago
As for biases... I think in many discussions these could also be called opinions. And you are allowed to have one of course. So I doubt a formalization of language is helpful here at all. Trying to find the minimal common position is probably more constructive and you would need to work out things from there. Conflicts will arise inevitably that need to be dealt with by compromises. The problem with attesting cognitive bias is just that you could invalidate any statement without proof, since you cannot measure bias. Cognitive bias has few measurable effects with different results from small variances in inputs. Wouldn't want to invent recursive cognitive bias here. I think cognitive psychology itself would need to take a closer look at itself. It can very well be an indicator that formal logic and heuristics are not a sufficent model for human thought processes. Sounds trivial really. Maybe you believe otherwise because you heard someone saying something stupid. Bias? As for vetting information, there simply isn't any authority. Everyone could become one, you would just need to convince all the others. I also often suffer from the circumstance of being the only one with the correct opinion or bias for that matter. > students supporting each side of a football match counted a different number of infractions and reported referee bias in opposite directions Exactly. Did they report their numbers because they thought them to be true?
- mistermann 7y ago
  > As for biases... I think in many discussions these could also be called opinions. And you are allowed to have one of course. Of course, there's no getting away from people having opinions, but then I see no need to either. What might be helpful though, is a serious widespread effort to first, start paying attention to the degree to which sub-optimal thinking may be taking place in our ~societies (global, national, regional, forums, etc), and then try to figure out of anything can be done about it. A few examples of such sub-optimal thinking/behavior that are common (start looking for it and judge for yourself) even here on HN: - mistaking opinions for facts (at least when it comes to conversational presentation) - the mistaken belief that true enough generalizations of a group necessarily carries down to individual members & line items - ie: since <party/candidate x> behaves in a certain way, then therefore it logically follows that each individual who voted for (or continues to support) that entity will act in unison with each other and the greater entity, on all individual decisions. Of course, no one actually explicitly thinks this way, but start paying attention and see if you notice anyone behaving this way. Typically, this manifests as an apparent perceived ability to read minds and predict the future. - operational (behavioral) unawareness of the difference between ~facts and perspectives on facts. Or, evaluation of a high dimensional object on a subset of dimensions, without realizing it. This will often manifest as two people arguing about a complex issue and both behaving as if their position is absolutely correct....it's because both positions very well may be correct! - "believing" (due to heuristics) that because something worked out one way in the past, it will always work out that way in the future, regardless of whether the conditions have changed (ie: socialism/capitalism will result in <x>) - an apparent inability/unwillingness to accept more than two states of knowledge: true or false. Not only is there a third state, unknown, but varying levels of reasoned certainty are also possible (this one seems rather innocuous, but I have a feeling it is one of the most impactful - it's difficult to argue passionately when you have no strong beliefs) - letting emotions override logic, often in response to triggers such as inflammatory comments - and so on, the list is endless > Trying to find the minimal common position is probably more constructive and you would need to work out things from there. Conflicts will arise inevitably that need to be dealt with by compromises. Exactly, but a prerequisite for that is the development of skills in understanding how the human mind works, and an ability to put that knowledge into practice. Many intelligent folks have decent academic skills in this area already, but change the topic to something controversial and watch the memory of those skills vanish as they revert to heuristic-based thinking. > As for vetting information, there simply isn't any authority. Everyone could become one, you would just need to convince all the others. I completely agree, but how many people actually realize this on a behavioral basis, whether or not they believe it on an academic basis? In a thread about trustworthiness of news, there will typically be little more than minor disagreements here, but move the topic to something else, that is based on the content broadcast by that very same news, and watch the fireworks start. This is the phenomenon I refer to as operational/behavioral, or putting the knowledge into practice. Like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. The general sentiment I perceive on whether improvements can be made in this area tends to be quite negative. It's been like this forever, so why should we expect it to ever change? Well, have we ever actually tried to do something about it? The US government and media claim there is a near crisis level of disinformation based foreign interference in our democracy, yet have you heard any politician float the idea of maybe putting a little effort into teaching people how to think, just as we teach them all sort of other things that don't happen to come naturally (math, spelling, physics, programming, etc). It seems like a rather odd situation to me. Or, rather than sitting around waiting for the government to do something on a grand scale, is there a smaller domain or platform where individuals could collectively agree to start working on these issues, sort of as a group experiment in mass psychology?
mikedilger 7y ago
> Key takeaway: It is impossible to have a neutral arbiter that is also perceived as neutral. Actually, it is impossible to have a neutral arbiter. The problem isn't one of perceptions and allegation of bias. Most statements either are not objective (Trump is a bad president) or are objective in theory but cannot be determined (Trump intended to dig up dirt on his political rival). Nature doesn't provide a zero detent, so there is no way to be a neutral arbiter. The problem with Big Tech determining what is and what is not fake news isn't censorship, it is that they have proven time and again that they are no better at determining what is true than we are. Big Tech doesn't have some rigorous technique, they pass the buck to media companies. Media companies pass stories along like Chinese whispers... nobody bothers doing investigative reporting anymore because it's too expensive given the shifts in the marketplace. So on a per-story basis, only a handful of people actually have direct knowledge, and as humans with biases they relay their interpretation of that knowledge. Everyone down the line parrots the bias unknowingly. The only way we find out the mainstream media is wrong is when another person with direct knowledge took perhaps a video and posts it on YouTube. Unfortunately for that poor sod, he gets the video taken down as fake news.

wickerman 7y ago

Yeah, my whole impression while reading this article was "why try to solve a non-technological problem using technology?" If the over abundance of information is just reinforcing existing psychological issues with humans then humans have to either get over these issues or reduce the exposure to information.

smallnamespace 7y ago
How are you going to reach people nowadays, except via technology? Also, we're pretty much on a timer right now to get things right on at least climate change policy. We don't have the luxury of 30 years, or even a decade, to 'get over these issues'. You can simultaneously believe that 'all the kinks with new technologies got worked out eventually' and 'it really sucked for the ones who didn't survive the transition'
w1nst0nsm1th 7y ago
We cure cancer, which is biological issue, with chimical means, and so coming from technological advance. That said, that doesn't means we have the technological means to solve problems posed by fake news and radicalization of opinion. Regulation is probably the key, even if it means policing the web. The problem here is fake news can comes from everywhere and is not restricted from coming from countries outside the national intended audience where national regulating instance have no influence. An international watchdog has to be formed.

raxxorrax 7y ago

As for biases... I think in many discussions these could also be called opinions. And you are allowed to have one of course. So I doubt a formalization of language is helpful here at all. Trying to find the minimal common position is probably more constructive and you would need to work out things from there. Conflicts will arise inevitably that need to be dealt with by compromises. The problem with attesting cognitive bias is just that you could invalidate any statement without proof, since you cannot measure bias. Cognitive bias has few measurable effects with different results from small variances in inputs. Wouldn't want to invent recursive cognitive bias here. I think cognitive psychology itself would need to take a closer look at itself. It can very well be an indicator that formal logic and heuristics are not a sufficent model for human thought processes. Sounds trivial really. Maybe you believe otherwise because you heard someone saying something stupid. Bias? As for vetting information, there simply isn't any authority. Everyone could become one, you would just need to convince all the others. I also often suffer from the circumstance of being the only one with the correct opinion or bias for that matter. > students supporting each side of a football match counted a different number of infractions and reported referee bias in opposite directions Exactly. Did they report their numbers because they thought them to be true?

mistermann 7y ago
> As for biases... I think in many discussions these could also be called opinions. And you are allowed to have one of course. Of course, there's no getting away from people having opinions, but then I see no need to either. What might be helpful though, is a serious widespread effort to first, start paying attention to the degree to which sub-optimal thinking may be taking place in our ~societies (global, national, regional, forums, etc), and then try to figure out of anything can be done about it. A few examples of such sub-optimal thinking/behavior that are common (start looking for it and judge for yourself) even here on HN: - mistaking opinions for facts (at least when it comes to conversational presentation) - the mistaken belief that true enough generalizations of a group necessarily carries down to individual members & line items - ie: since <party/candidate x> behaves in a certain way, then therefore it logically follows that each individual who voted for (or continues to support) that entity will act in unison with each other and the greater entity, on all individual decisions. Of course, no one actually explicitly thinks this way, but start paying attention and see if you notice anyone behaving this way. Typically, this manifests as an apparent perceived ability to read minds and predict the future. - operational (behavioral) unawareness of the difference between ~facts and perspectives on facts. Or, evaluation of a high dimensional object on a subset of dimensions, without realizing it. This will often manifest as two people arguing about a complex issue and both behaving as if their position is absolutely correct....it's because both positions very well may be correct! - "believing" (due to heuristics) that because something worked out one way in the past, it will always work out that way in the future, regardless of whether the conditions have changed (ie: socialism/capitalism will result in <x>) - an apparent inability/unwillingness to accept more than two states of knowledge: true or false. Not only is there a third state, unknown, but varying levels of reasoned certainty are also possible (this one seems rather innocuous, but I have a feeling it is one of the most impactful - it's difficult to argue passionately when you have no strong beliefs) - letting emotions override logic, often in response to triggers such as inflammatory comments - and so on, the list is endless > Trying to find the minimal common position is probably more constructive and you would need to work out things from there. Conflicts will arise inevitably that need to be dealt with by compromises. Exactly, but a prerequisite for that is the development of skills in understanding how the human mind works, and an ability to put that knowledge into practice. Many intelligent folks have decent academic skills in this area already, but change the topic to something controversial and watch the memory of those skills vanish as they revert to heuristic-based thinking. > As for vetting information, there simply isn't any authority. Everyone could become one, you would just need to convince all the others. I completely agree, but how many people actually realize this on a behavioral basis, whether or not they believe it on an academic basis? In a thread about trustworthiness of news, there will typically be little more than minor disagreements here, but move the topic to something else, that is based on the content broadcast by that very same news, and watch the fireworks start. This is the phenomenon I refer to as operational/behavioral, or putting the knowledge into practice. Like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. The general sentiment I perceive on whether improvements can be made in this area tends to be quite negative. It's been like this forever, so why should we expect it to ever change? Well, have we ever actually tried to do something about it? The US government and media claim there is a near crisis level of disinformation based foreign interference in our democracy, yet have you heard any politician float the idea of maybe putting a little effort into teaching people how to think, just as we teach them all sort of other things that don't happen to come naturally (math, spelling, physics, programming, etc). It seems like a rather odd situation to me. Or, rather than sitting around waiting for the government to do something on a grand scale, is there a smaller domain or platform where individuals could collectively agree to start working on these issues, sort of as a group experiment in mass psychology?

mikedilger 7y ago

> Key takeaway: It is impossible to have a neutral arbiter that is also perceived as neutral. Actually, it is impossible to have a neutral arbiter. The problem isn't one of perceptions and allegation of bias. Most statements either are not objective (Trump is a bad president) or are objective in theory but cannot be determined (Trump intended to dig up dirt on his political rival). Nature doesn't provide a zero detent, so there is no way to be a neutral arbiter. The problem with Big Tech determining what is and what is not fake news isn't censorship, it is that they have proven time and again that they are no better at determining what is true than we are. Big Tech doesn't have some rigorous technique, they pass the buck to media companies. Media companies pass stories along like Chinese whispers... nobody bothers doing investigative reporting anymore because it's too expensive given the shifts in the marketplace. So on a per-story basis, only a handful of people actually have direct knowledge, and as humans with biases they relay their interpretation of that knowledge. Everyone down the line parrots the bias unknowingly. The only way we find out the mainstream media is wrong is when another person with direct knowledge took perhaps a video and posts it on YouTube. Unfortunately for that poor sod, he gets the video taken down as fake news.