4 ms·

I can ask GPT-3 to generate headlines. Most or all of these will be either incoherent or incorrect to at least this degree. It won't start any wars, because G

I can ask GPT-3 to generate headlines. Most or all of these will be either incoherent or incorrect to at least this degree. It won't start any wars, because GPT-3 just isn't that influential. You're not necessarily wrong -- I don't know -- but don't mistake relative influence for relative inaccuracy. I suspect -- but don't know -- that giving Infowars the amount of influence you're citing here would result in a tragedy of at least similar scale.

pessimizer 4y ago
Infowars wasn't "given" influence. It earned it by making news for wingnuts. Putting wingnut headlines in the NYT would just trash the NYT, which is why they had to work closely with the government to craft messaging that would be convincing to their audience. It wouldn't turn the world into wingnuts. edit: The world moves towards wingnuttery when outlets like the NYT knowingly (but deniably) lie about very important things, and make it clear that they would do the exact same thing again by not accepting responsibility. Then you've left the public completely adrift. Why not listen to Infowars? The worst they could be are liars.
- amalcon 4y ago
  I'm not going to argue with that (not because I agree, but because it's not a discussion I feel like having). My issue is that it seems to have nothing to do with what I said. I was posing a hypothetical in which Infowars had influence comparable to the entire U.S. media apparatus, not making a statement about their history or how they obtained what little influence they have.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  It greatest success was that he was elevated to a significant threat. Before he was just a guy that sold some man-pills, but now he has the world in his grasp only by uttering some words, destroying civil society with misinformation. That is nothing else than a huge promotion. Meanwhile onlookers are loosing faith in his "opposition". Naturally...

pessimizer 4y ago

Infowars wasn't "given" influence. It earned it by making news for wingnuts. Putting wingnut headlines in the NYT would just trash the NYT, which is why they had to work closely with the government to craft messaging that would be convincing to their audience. It wouldn't turn the world into wingnuts. edit: The world moves towards wingnuttery when outlets like the NYT knowingly (but deniably) lie about very important things, and make it clear that they would do the exact same thing again by not accepting responsibility. Then you've left the public completely adrift. Why not listen to Infowars? The worst they could be are liars.

amalcon 4y ago
I'm not going to argue with that (not because I agree, but because it's not a discussion I feel like having). My issue is that it seems to have nothing to do with what I said. I was posing a hypothetical in which Infowars had influence comparable to the entire U.S. media apparatus, not making a statement about their history or how they obtained what little influence they have.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
It greatest success was that he was elevated to a significant threat. Before he was just a guy that sold some man-pills, but now he has the world in his grasp only by uttering some words, destroying civil society with misinformation. That is nothing else than a huge promotion. Meanwhile onlookers are loosing faith in his "opposition". Naturally...