3 ms·

I found this comment so shocking I went and read your post history and I'm really interested how this view arises. Can I ask your background that made you think

by neolog 6y ago

I found this comment so shocking I went and read your post history and I'm really interested how this view arises. Can I ask your background that made you think this way?

sumtechguy 6y ago
I 'follow' these theories. Most are junk. Most have a hinge-pin of a idea that if pulled out the whole thing collapses. The supporting evidence is usually designed to make that idea stronger. I use the a modified mythbusters classification of them. 'busted', 'unlikely', 'plausible', 'confirmed'. I have never heard the snoweden is a totally made up generated person before. Other than he is a CIA actor theory. That just means I am not an expert on this. But it could be 'sorta plausible'. NSA is probably a good generation ahead of most of the world tech wise. They have the compute power for it and the brain power for it. So a deepfake from them is 'plausible'. But I lean towards unlikely in that case. As what we see from deepfakes is kind of weird and strange. Some bit of him 'popping' is probably a camera roll shutter thing. He seems like he is a guy who did something, because what he saw was bad. When something jumps from 'busted' over to the 'confirmed' category that is when you can raise an eyebrow. That happens very rarely. The 2016 email dumps of Hillary did that in a few cases. Which was surprising. As to how you can end up 'there'. Well it mostly depends on what news feeds you let into your life, and do not go into them with a health dose of deep skepticism. Youtube can get a bit stuck on particular things as its alg feeds on engagement. Watch 1 video from someone and you have kind of exhausted your other threads of thought in their system and it will go hog wild and show you a different class of stuff if it is not on their 'do not show this to people list'. Remember ML/AI is basically very fancy cubic spline fitting across many nodes with some calculus thrown in and N stages. But if you end up between two points you can get strange results. But a computer does not know a garbage result from a good one. So it gives it to you with a 90% confidence. If something jumps categories some people like that idea. They like the idea they can say 'Ive know about that for years'. I think it also gives comfort to them if they can not make sense of an idea. But my jedi mind skills are weak so I can not read minds :)
feralimal 6y ago
My background is a technologist who observed the Snowden story. I followed some of the details and was genuinely shocked at the revelations therein. I was looking at HN for more info at the time. But I also followed main stream media. The gulf between the technical details that were reported on HN and mainstream news sites was so large, it was clear to me that a damage limitation exercise was being undertaken. That in itself raised loads more questions for me. Here's a link to a video on Snowden's disappearing glasses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QqxLalvh-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QqxLalvh-4 Cutting to the chase, if it is as I suggest it is - that most media is there as part of the governance structure to beam a particular type of messaging to us - you then have a few options. You can refuse what I say, and accept the media as is presented. This is surely the path of least resistance. If you care about the truth, you can look more deeply and research all ideas before accepting them as true. Just because you see something on TV does not make it true. My thesis is that news media is just production of a show, like a film or cartoon. You don't trust films or cartoons - so don't trust the news. Here's a fun example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDYKXMkSRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDYKXMkSRs - check the folder change colour live on the news! Is it fair enough to manipulate what we see on account of a "green" budget? My bottom line nowadays, philosophically speaking, is that I am only prepared to accept as true that which I can confirm for myself via my own experience. This may sound a weak position, and it is perhaps. But I stand on solid ground as I am personally able to verify whatever I claim. With regards to events that are presented in the media, I take an aggressive deconstructive position, and ask questions such as: have I been provided evidence, am I being emotionally manipulated, is the story coherent, etc. I find my questioning frequently provides evidence that the story is not coherent, and can be dismissed. That again may sound weak, but the thing with truth is that it is resilient and not incoherent - when you are presented with an incoherent story then you can dismiss and ignore _all_ of it. So, my default position with media stories is to autohoax them and to lend far greater weight to personal experience.

by neolog 6y ago

I found this comment so shocking I went and read your post history and I'm really interested how this view arises. Can I ask your background that made you think this way?

sumtechguy 6y ago

I 'follow' these theories. Most are junk. Most have a hinge-pin of a idea that if pulled out the whole thing collapses. The supporting evidence is usually designed to make that idea stronger. I use the a modified mythbusters classification of them. 'busted', 'unlikely', 'plausible', 'confirmed'. I have never heard the snoweden is a totally made up generated person before. Other than he is a CIA actor theory. That just means I am not an expert on this. But it could be 'sorta plausible'. NSA is probably a good generation ahead of most of the world tech wise. They have the compute power for it and the brain power for it. So a deepfake from them is 'plausible'. But I lean towards unlikely in that case. As what we see from deepfakes is kind of weird and strange. Some bit of him 'popping' is probably a camera roll shutter thing. He seems like he is a guy who did something, because what he saw was bad. When something jumps from 'busted' over to the 'confirmed' category that is when you can raise an eyebrow. That happens very rarely. The 2016 email dumps of Hillary did that in a few cases. Which was surprising. As to how you can end up 'there'. Well it mostly depends on what news feeds you let into your life, and do not go into them with a health dose of deep skepticism. Youtube can get a bit stuck on particular things as its alg feeds on engagement. Watch 1 video from someone and you have kind of exhausted your other threads of thought in their system and it will go hog wild and show you a different class of stuff if it is not on their 'do not show this to people list'. Remember ML/AI is basically very fancy cubic spline fitting across many nodes with some calculus thrown in and N stages. But if you end up between two points you can get strange results. But a computer does not know a garbage result from a good one. So it gives it to you with a 90% confidence. If something jumps categories some people like that idea. They like the idea they can say 'Ive know about that for years'. I think it also gives comfort to them if they can not make sense of an idea. But my jedi mind skills are weak so I can not read minds :)

feralimal 6y ago

My background is a technologist who observed the Snowden story. I followed some of the details and was genuinely shocked at the revelations therein. I was looking at HN for more info at the time. But I also followed main stream media. The gulf between the technical details that were reported on HN and mainstream news sites was so large, it was clear to me that a damage limitation exercise was being undertaken. That in itself raised loads more questions for me. Here's a link to a video on Snowden's disappearing glasses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QqxLalvh-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QqxLalvh-4 Cutting to the chase, if it is as I suggest it is - that most media is there as part of the governance structure to beam a particular type of messaging to us - you then have a few options. You can refuse what I say, and accept the media as is presented. This is surely the path of least resistance. If you care about the truth, you can look more deeply and research all ideas before accepting them as true. Just because you see something on TV does not make it true. My thesis is that news media is just production of a show, like a film or cartoon. You don't trust films or cartoons - so don't trust the news. Here's a fun example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDYKXMkSRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDYKXMkSRs - check the folder change colour live on the news! Is it fair enough to manipulate what we see on account of a "green" budget? My bottom line nowadays, philosophically speaking, is that I am only prepared to accept as true that which I can confirm for myself via my own experience. This may sound a weak position, and it is perhaps. But I stand on solid ground as I am personally able to verify whatever I claim. With regards to events that are presented in the media, I take an aggressive deconstructive position, and ask questions such as: have I been provided evidence, am I being emotionally manipulated, is the story coherent, etc. I find my questioning frequently provides evidence that the story is not coherent, and can be dismissed. That again may sound weak, but the thing with truth is that it is resilient and not incoherent - when you are presented with an incoherent story then you can dismiss and ignore _all_ of it. So, my default position with media stories is to autohoax them and to lend far greater weight to personal experience.