4 ms·

The machines don't have malice, they aren't like humans. No company is required to provide intellectually healthy results. How would those be defined in a fai

The machines don't have malice, they aren't like humans. No company is required to provide intellectually healthy results. How would those be defined in a fair way? Is there even a good way of detecting less direct codeword driven searches that might silo perspective? A better approach might involve multiple, hopefully not for profit, fact checking and news organizations. Each might have a Truth / Lies and Bias / Informative score among others that helps show the quality of the information. This metadata could be a first class citizen on the content. A warning in front of content that has not yet been vetted or which includes lies / large bias might help warn and inform end users.

saurik 4y ago
> The machines don't have malice, they aren't like humans. Correct: it is the humans that built the machines in this way and continue to operate them that are malicious, not the machines. In this way I will note that it isn't even clear to me that companies can have malice: humans--employees of companies and developers of machines--have malice. > No company is required to provide intellectually healthy results. Correct: no one is required to not be evil. Google for a long time claimed to not be evil, but the people who work for Google are, in fact, quite evil :(. Regardless, the issue at hand was whether these systems are--and this is an exact quote from the post I am replying to--"designed to show people what they want"... they are not.