4 ms·

Nowadays AI can recognize speech and search for data. Someone should implement an AI application to compare political discourses with actual facts and show the

by ffhhj 5y ago

Nowadays AI can recognize speech and search for data. Someone should implement an AI application to compare political discourses with actual facts and show the inconsistences in realtime. That's a way AI would make the world better.

akomtu 5y ago
There's no AI yet. But if it's invented, it will be promptly used to create autonomous quadracopter style drones that patrol and police their territory and recharge themselves when necessary. It'll be used to make an "agent smith" type of surveillance bot that listens to people talking at their homes (over the alexa and such mics) and intelligently find dissenters with an extreme accuracy. That's something every dictator would pay half his empire for.
ilaksh 5y ago
That presumes that there is a completely unbiased person or group that knows what the objective truth is. What you can do is measure to some degree which direction certain publications or articles are leaning, such as left/right or establishment/anti-establishment. And whether they are more provocative, or more nuanced. That way you can be aware of biases and try to integrate information coming from different perspectives. https://www.improvethenews.org/ https://www.improvethenews.org/
- ineedasername 5y ago
  We have a person like that in the US. In fact we have about 328,000,000 people that are fairly sure they are that sort of person. (well, we can probably subtract out the population under 2 years old, that's about the age my kids started strongly expressing their views on how things worked.)
godelski 5y ago
Ah yes, the Ministry of Truth, what a great idea. Who decides that truth? You or me? Because I'll change my thoughts on if it is a great idea depending which you decide. The problem here is that frequently there isn't an objective truth. There's often a substantial amount of nuance involved too (something ML can't really process yet). You'll notice that fact checkers often limit what they fact check to subjects that are well documented and not contentious in the realm of experts in the field. Unfortunately many problems don't fit under this umbrella. Of course, you could do this in a limited sense, but there's a can of worms that comes with it. Unfortunately we don't know how big that can is, just that if we open it that there's worms inside. So we should be cautious.
ineedasername 5y ago
That would require a central repository of "actual facts". Even if there was one and everyone agreed on every entry, there would still be the issue that a vast majority of political speech is opinionated interpretation of a selected group of facts. Fool-proof automatic fact checking might be nice, but it wouldn't solve the problems inherent in the current state of political discourse.

by ffhhj 5y ago

akomtu 5y ago

There's no AI yet. But if it's invented, it will be promptly used to create autonomous quadracopter style drones that patrol and police their territory and recharge themselves when necessary. It'll be used to make an "agent smith" type of surveillance bot that listens to people talking at their homes (over the alexa and such mics) and intelligently find dissenters with an extreme accuracy. That's something every dictator would pay half his empire for.

ilaksh 5y ago

That presumes that there is a completely unbiased person or group that knows what the objective truth is. What you can do is measure to some degree which direction certain publications or articles are leaning, such as left/right or establishment/anti-establishment. And whether they are more provocative, or more nuanced. That way you can be aware of biases and try to integrate information coming from different perspectives. https://www.improvethenews.org/ https://www.improvethenews.org/

ineedasername 5y ago
We have a person like that in the US. In fact we have about 328,000,000 people that are fairly sure they are that sort of person. (well, we can probably subtract out the population under 2 years old, that's about the age my kids started strongly expressing their views on how things worked.)

godelski 5y ago

Ah yes, the Ministry of Truth, what a great idea. Who decides that truth? You or me? Because I'll change my thoughts on if it is a great idea depending which you decide. The problem here is that frequently there isn't an objective truth. There's often a substantial amount of nuance involved too (something ML can't really process yet). You'll notice that fact checkers often limit what they fact check to subjects that are well documented and not contentious in the realm of experts in the field. Unfortunately many problems don't fit under this umbrella. Of course, you could do this in a limited sense, but there's a can of worms that comes with it. Unfortunately we don't know how big that can is, just that if we open it that there's worms inside. So we should be cautious.

ineedasername 5y ago

That would require a central repository of "actual facts". Even if there was one and everyone agreed on every entry, there would still be the issue that a vast majority of political speech is opinionated interpretation of a selected group of facts. Fool-proof automatic fact checking might be nice, but it wouldn't solve the problems inherent in the current state of political discourse.