3 ms·

Points 2 & 3 in particular remind me of an Alan Kay quote — One can’t solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it. Any mention of solutions

Points 2 & 3 in particular remind me of an Alan Kay quote — One can’t solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it. Any mention of solutions such as automated content moderation (Eg: detecting “fake” news) or optimizing slightly different metrics, reminds me of that quote. Social media platforms are so enamored with algorithms running at scale, and high platform-engagement being to the user’s benefit that they perceive every problem through the lens of such solutions. For a succinct explanation of the fundamental brokenness of automated fact checking, see https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/09/03/wittgensteins-revenge/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/09/03/wittgensteins-revenge/

sideshowb 6y ago
If automated fake news detectors are to work, I think it has to be via propositional logic. Not "x is false" but "if you believe x then you must logically also believe y, which according to your user proposition record, you don't. You might want to revise you beliefs, or alternatively add some new propositions to resolve this contradiction."
- enkid 6y ago
  I have a hard time believing most people would willingly use a system that pointed out their own inconsistencies. That's the type of thing people need to discover themselves, and tend to get hostile if it's not handled very delicately.
  - sideshowb 6y ago
    Yeah, I started my comment with "if" because it may be barking up the wrong tree altogether. But if someone turned e.g. Wikidata into a system capable of that, it would be useful for much more anyway. Like for researchers dealing in topics too complex to see the inconsistencies without help.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    I might not like to see my inconsistencies, but I'd probably be fascinated by them. For some, the natural drive towards reconciling inconsistencies would be helped by them being exposed that way. For others, I might accept the inconsistency, and it would be fascinating to see which ones I made a choice to accept that way. I don't regard that as fundamental inconsistency anyway, because all statements are approximations, and apparent inconsistency can be a valid (and healthy) holding state while figuring out nuances, which can take a long time. For yet others, I suspect I would conclude they aren't inconsistencies in my own thinking, they are inconsistencies in how others / the system interprets my thinking, and then I'd have to refine how I describe them. If the system didn't allow me to express the necessary nuances so it always regarded my thinking as inconsistent despite not really being so, that would be frustrating. After all, that's how it is with other people already: Invariably they believe I believe something that I don't, and no amount of explanation sorts that out because, by and large, they aren't interested in the necessary nuance. The one key feature that would make a system pointing out my inconsistencies pleasant to use is: If it were private advice, between me and the system. The moment it becomes social pressure, public knowledge, pronouncements about me, that's when it would stop being something I'd want to engage with.
    - sideshowb 6y ago
      Yes to all this. I think such a system should basically be used like a spell checker. Whether you accept or reject individual propositions is private information, though anyone can edit the public database of propositions. If it ever works at all, that is.
ternaryoperator 6y ago
The quotation is from Einstein, rather than Alan Kay, although the exact wording is disputed. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

sideshowb 6y ago

If automated fake news detectors are to work, I think it has to be via propositional logic. Not "x is false" but "if you believe x then you must logically also believe y, which according to your user proposition record, you don't. You might want to revise you beliefs, or alternatively add some new propositions to resolve this contradiction."

enkid 6y ago
I have a hard time believing most people would willingly use a system that pointed out their own inconsistencies. That's the type of thing people need to discover themselves, and tend to get hostile if it's not handled very delicately.
- sideshowb 6y ago
  Yeah, I started my comment with "if" because it may be barking up the wrong tree altogether. But if someone turned e.g. Wikidata into a system capable of that, it would be useful for much more anyway. Like for researchers dealing in topics too complex to see the inconsistencies without help.
- jlokier 6y ago
  I might not like to see my inconsistencies, but I'd probably be fascinated by them. For some, the natural drive towards reconciling inconsistencies would be helped by them being exposed that way. For others, I might accept the inconsistency, and it would be fascinating to see which ones I made a choice to accept that way. I don't regard that as fundamental inconsistency anyway, because all statements are approximations, and apparent inconsistency can be a valid (and healthy) holding state while figuring out nuances, which can take a long time. For yet others, I suspect I would conclude they aren't inconsistencies in my own thinking, they are inconsistencies in how others / the system interprets my thinking, and then I'd have to refine how I describe them. If the system didn't allow me to express the necessary nuances so it always regarded my thinking as inconsistent despite not really being so, that would be frustrating. After all, that's how it is with other people already: Invariably they believe I believe something that I don't, and no amount of explanation sorts that out because, by and large, they aren't interested in the necessary nuance. The one key feature that would make a system pointing out my inconsistencies pleasant to use is: If it were private advice, between me and the system. The moment it becomes social pressure, public knowledge, pronouncements about me, that's when it would stop being something I'd want to engage with.
  - sideshowb 6y ago
    Yes to all this. I think such a system should basically be used like a spell checker. Whether you accept or reject individual propositions is private information, though anyone can edit the public database of propositions. If it ever works at all, that is.

ternaryoperator 6y ago

The quotation is from Einstein, rather than Alan Kay, although the exact wording is disputed. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein