4 ms·

We should measure harm and then fine the businesses that spread the harm. Maybe, but this has nothing to do with deepfakes, and can be generalized. Societies

by eivarv 6y ago

We should measure harm and then fine the businesses that spread the harm. Maybe, but this has nothing to do with deepfakes, and can be generalized. Societies should teach people to recognize and deal with mis- and disinformation, rather than provide them faulty assumptions upon which to base their trust.

faeyanpiraat 6y ago
Who is the “We” in this case?
- eivarv 6y ago
  Sorry; "Societies"
Retric 6y ago
That requires people to have some trusted sources they can use as a baseline. It’s all well and good to assume objective truth is available, but really it’s the most blatant examples people catch not the more subtle. Add in biases and people are all to willing to discount the truth they dislike as propaganda etc.
- eivarv 6y ago
  No, it doesn't. It requires teaching people the tools to evaluate arguments, statements and media. I don't claim anything wrt objective truth (though I tend to think there is one, but whether we're able to directly observe it and/or agree on it is another matter) – I'm claiming we have tools (knowledge, cognitive ability) to weed out obviously incoherent, illogical, biased, untrustworthy or otherwise bad thought.
  - Retric 6y ago
    My point was detecting obviously untrustworthy isn’t enough. If a broadcast is for example inconsistent in what it’s reporting aka mentioning 7 dead then 9, then 3, etc sure you can pay attention and notice the issue. Similarly, poor logical arguments are detectable etc. However, bias can show up in what’s not reported just as easily and in that case their is nothing to detect. Essentially, you can train people to deal with poor execution, but that’s not enough when the subtle stuff is equally if not more important.
    - eivarv 6y ago
      However, bias can show up in what’s not reported just as easily and in that case their is nothing to detect. You're right about not knowing what you don't know. But that doesn't mean that you should blindly trust some discriminator system (which we know can't make any technical guarantees, and comes with additional risks) instead of learning to reason about these things.

by eivarv 6y ago

faeyanpiraat 6y ago

Who is the “We” in this case?

eivarv 6y ago
Sorry; "Societies"

Retric 6y ago

That requires people to have some trusted sources they can use as a baseline. It’s all well and good to assume objective truth is available, but really it’s the most blatant examples people catch not the more subtle. Add in biases and people are all to willing to discount the truth they dislike as propaganda etc.

eivarv 6y ago
No, it doesn't. It requires teaching people the tools to evaluate arguments, statements and media. I don't claim anything wrt objective truth (though I tend to think there is one, but whether we're able to directly observe it and/or agree on it is another matter) – I'm claiming we have tools (knowledge, cognitive ability) to weed out obviously incoherent, illogical, biased, untrustworthy or otherwise bad thought.
- Retric 6y ago
  My point was detecting obviously untrustworthy isn’t enough. If a broadcast is for example inconsistent in what it’s reporting aka mentioning 7 dead then 9, then 3, etc sure you can pay attention and notice the issue. Similarly, poor logical arguments are detectable etc. However, bias can show up in what’s not reported just as easily and in that case their is nothing to detect. Essentially, you can train people to deal with poor execution, but that’s not enough when the subtle stuff is equally if not more important.
  - eivarv 6y ago
    However, bias can show up in what’s not reported just as easily and in that case their is nothing to detect. You're right about not knowing what you don't know. But that doesn't mean that you should blindly trust some discriminator system (which we know can't make any technical guarantees, and comes with additional risks) instead of learning to reason about these things.