6 ms·

Chat GPT reveals that academia has fallen short of the trend as follows. " When you are growing and everyone trusts you, you can do no wrong, and your mistakes

Chat GPT reveals that academia has fallen short of the trend as follows. " When you are growing and everyone trusts you, you can do no wrong, and your mistakes shrink into nothing on their own." " When you begin to shrink and your reputation sours, you can do no right, your wrongs balloon catastrophically and your rights slowly shrink into nothing like your wrongs used to" Academia I'm sure provides tons of stuff, but once you sour your reputation and you pop your balloon, it's very very hard to recover from it. We've gone from a world where the average person trusts institutions to a world where the average person doesn't. Even I don't trust anything coming out of any large institution anymore. If I look up news, and I see CNN and MSNBC and any of those big networks, I keep scrolling until I find someone showing me the raw event with no commentary. If I search some review I scroll past all of the official review sites and find some random nobody who appears to be expressing their own experiences. Why? Because I don't trust anything bigger than an individual. Doctors hide themselves behind hospitals with a million accountant sent number punchers who are incentivized to screw you over. Companies pull the journalists into their wings so that the journalists are beholden random advertisers, and can write whatever they want without much risk to their own credibility. I'm confident academia is falling to very similar issues. These institutions take responsibility and spread it thin like butter over toast, and when you do that everything and that institution needs to be considered not credible. All of these opinions of academia probably come from the behavior of a small fraction of bad actors who get popularized in the news, but because those bad actors aren't named and shamed as individuals, the institution takes the blame and all of the good things that come out of it are no longer worthy of trust.

bulgur 4y ago
[dead]
- bioemerl 4y ago
  I think everyone and everything will be targeted by spammers, not because they are hated, but because such spammers are universal and will always target any open gap that exists. There might be targeted attacks, but I believe that if there was drive for such attacks, they'd already be in play without Chat GPT.
jacooper 4y ago
I think there are a few typos and missing words in this comment, just notifying you so you can edit it
platz 4y ago
> Even I don't trust anything coming out of any large institutions anymore Learn to differentiate between facts and editorials/opinions. Alternative media isn't very good at presenting basic facts correctly, something institutions still do well and can only spin so far. Alternative media outright lies about facts.
- prepend 4y ago
  For me, it’s not that I can’t differentiate, but that it’s tiresome. Major news sources frequently blend fact and opinion so it’s extra effort to read their material rather than to just read the source directly. This doesn’t mean I read “alternative media” but being slightly better than a cesspool doesn’t mean I want to use them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tppiotrowski 4y ago
  > I keep scrolling until I find someone showing me the raw event with no commentary. Parent said they look for source material, not alternative media
- somenameforme 4y ago
  And what is your take on Brian Sicknick [1]? He's the officer who died following the January 6th riots. [1] All big media sites ran an identical story. He was not only killed, but he was bludgeoned to death, in the head, by a rioter wielding a fire hydrant. Quite the visceral and disturbing imagery. The problem is that it was not true, at all. Not only was he not killed by rioters - the medical examiner would later testify that he was completely physically unharmed as a consequence of the riots. He didn't even die on January 6th, and was texting his brother that evening. He died the next day following a series of strokes, from a preexisting clot in his brain. Any media outlet which did even the bare minimum of research would have known it was a lie: contact the brother, the hospital, the coroner's office (seeking only a date confirmation), let alone actually having done any real investigation whatsoever into the claims. But they didn't. Politicians, including the president (who all would have had 100% certainty that he was not killed) then continued to actively lie to the public and exploit his death for political gain, even including having a formal ceremony at the Capital Rotunda that's been traditionally reserved for individuals such as Rosa Parks and RBG. When it was finally revealed to be a lie, where was the reckoning? An exploited media anxious to discover how and why they were misled, and hold those responsible accountable? For that matter what of holding the politicians accountable for their own behavior? They were actively and maliciously lying and propagandizing a man's death on a national level. Instead, the media tried to shift the story to the strokes being caused by pepper spray - which was also another completely fabricated lie with no basis in reality. Then when the chief medical examiner refused to play ball, they just buried the story. There was 0 interest in the truth from the beginning to end. And here you are saying the big media is good at presenting basic facts and can only spin so far. This is not a swipe at you, but rather emphasizing how they're able to really get away with this. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick
openknot 4y ago
> "If I search some review I scroll past all of the official review sites and find some random nobody who appears to be expressing their own experiences." That strategy has been tainted for a while. Lots of seemingly legitimate comments from nobodies on social media like Reddit are actually from old accounts bought by companies, especially for product reviews (this is an explicit strategy by certain marketers). Even many enthusiastic product recommendations from YouTubers are influenced by sponsorships (oftentimes, even if they disclose that they were paid to make the sponsorship, they then say that they "genuinely" support the product even if it turns out to be defective). The best way to evaluate a review is more based on examining the content of the review (instead of skipping to the conclusion), rather than who the person is. A person's small blog with in-depth reviews is often very reliable. YouTubers with in-depth reviews (rather than quick product recommendations) are also reliable. Certain review sites are also likely reliable (Wirecutter is okay, though sometimes their recommendations are biased towards ease-of-use rather than getting the best result from a product), but it's best to look at what the reviews actually say (as I agree that other popular review sites are influenced by undisclosed sponsorships).
tppiotrowski 4y ago
I think traditional media manipulates by selectively omitting context. Let's say a police officer died of a heart attack during January 6th, it would be presented as "capital police officer dies during the riots". While technically true, different people would interpret this as murder or accident. Journalists argue that too much context makes for grueling reading but it's too powerful of a tool to wield selectively.
jancsika 4y ago
> If I look up news, and I see CNN and MSNBC and any of those big networks, I keep scrolling until I find someone showing me the raw event with no commentary. Here's a raw event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJuyn0WAYNI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJuyn0WAYNI There are a small handful of significant characteristics to notice about the raw event to prove to others you are a sentient human using actively using your music cognition. Here's a hint: disco chord. (Another hint: the answer isn't merely, "hey, I hear the disco chord now!") If you can hear the event and articulate it's significance, great! But if you cannot do that with something as ineffectual as pop music, ask yourself: what could you possibly achieve with raw data and no commentary in a domain with high stakes like epidemiology (for example)? Edit: typo, clarifications
kragen 4y ago
you say, We've gone from a world where the average person trusts institutions to a world where the average person doesn't. we've never been in a world where the average person trusts institutions you're in a tiny usa bubble established institutions in most of the world are openly corrupt, nepotistic, and kleptocratic, and they always have been, so average people trust their families and traditions, not institutions people in the usa are not average people

bulgur 4y ago

[dead]

bioemerl 4y ago
I think everyone and everything will be targeted by spammers, not because they are hated, but because such spammers are universal and will always target any open gap that exists. There might be targeted attacks, but I believe that if there was drive for such attacks, they'd already be in play without Chat GPT.

jacooper 4y ago

I think there are a few typos and missing words in this comment, just notifying you so you can edit it

platz 4y ago

> Even I don't trust anything coming out of any large institutions anymore Learn to differentiate between facts and editorials/opinions. Alternative media isn't very good at presenting basic facts correctly, something institutions still do well and can only spin so far. Alternative media outright lies about facts.

prepend 4y ago
For me, it’s not that I can’t differentiate, but that it’s tiresome. Major news sources frequently blend fact and opinion so it’s extra effort to read their material rather than to just read the source directly. This doesn’t mean I read “alternative media” but being slightly better than a cesspool doesn’t mean I want to use them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tppiotrowski 4y ago
> I keep scrolling until I find someone showing me the raw event with no commentary. Parent said they look for source material, not alternative media
somenameforme 4y ago
And what is your take on Brian Sicknick [1]? He's the officer who died following the January 6th riots. [1] All big media sites ran an identical story. He was not only killed, but he was bludgeoned to death, in the head, by a rioter wielding a fire hydrant. Quite the visceral and disturbing imagery. The problem is that it was not true, at all. Not only was he not killed by rioters - the medical examiner would later testify that he was completely physically unharmed as a consequence of the riots. He didn't even die on January 6th, and was texting his brother that evening. He died the next day following a series of strokes, from a preexisting clot in his brain. Any media outlet which did even the bare minimum of research would have known it was a lie: contact the brother, the hospital, the coroner's office (seeking only a date confirmation), let alone actually having done any real investigation whatsoever into the claims. But they didn't. Politicians, including the president (who all would have had 100% certainty that he was not killed) then continued to actively lie to the public and exploit his death for political gain, even including having a formal ceremony at the Capital Rotunda that's been traditionally reserved for individuals such as Rosa Parks and RBG. When it was finally revealed to be a lie, where was the reckoning? An exploited media anxious to discover how and why they were misled, and hold those responsible accountable? For that matter what of holding the politicians accountable for their own behavior? They were actively and maliciously lying and propagandizing a man's death on a national level. Instead, the media tried to shift the story to the strokes being caused by pepper spray - which was also another completely fabricated lie with no basis in reality. Then when the chief medical examiner refused to play ball, they just buried the story. There was 0 interest in the truth from the beginning to end. And here you are saying the big media is good at presenting basic facts and can only spin so far. This is not a swipe at you, but rather emphasizing how they're able to really get away with this. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick

openknot 4y ago

> "If I search some review I scroll past all of the official review sites and find some random nobody who appears to be expressing their own experiences." That strategy has been tainted for a while. Lots of seemingly legitimate comments from nobodies on social media like Reddit are actually from old accounts bought by companies, especially for product reviews (this is an explicit strategy by certain marketers). Even many enthusiastic product recommendations from YouTubers are influenced by sponsorships (oftentimes, even if they disclose that they were paid to make the sponsorship, they then say that they "genuinely" support the product even if it turns out to be defective). The best way to evaluate a review is more based on examining the content of the review (instead of skipping to the conclusion), rather than who the person is. A person's small blog with in-depth reviews is often very reliable. YouTubers with in-depth reviews (rather than quick product recommendations) are also reliable. Certain review sites are also likely reliable (Wirecutter is okay, though sometimes their recommendations are biased towards ease-of-use rather than getting the best result from a product), but it's best to look at what the reviews actually say (as I agree that other popular review sites are influenced by undisclosed sponsorships).

tppiotrowski 4y ago

I think traditional media manipulates by selectively omitting context. Let's say a police officer died of a heart attack during January 6th, it would be presented as "capital police officer dies during the riots". While technically true, different people would interpret this as murder or accident. Journalists argue that too much context makes for grueling reading but it's too powerful of a tool to wield selectively.

jancsika 4y ago

> If I look up news, and I see CNN and MSNBC and any of those big networks, I keep scrolling until I find someone showing me the raw event with no commentary. Here's a raw event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJuyn0WAYNI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJuyn0WAYNI There are a small handful of significant characteristics to notice about the raw event to prove to others you are a sentient human using actively using your music cognition. Here's a hint: disco chord. (Another hint: the answer isn't merely, "hey, I hear the disco chord now!") If you can hear the event and articulate it's significance, great! But if you cannot do that with something as ineffectual as pop music, ask yourself: what could you possibly achieve with raw data and no commentary in a domain with high stakes like epidemiology (for example)? Edit: typo, clarifications

kragen 4y ago

you say, We've gone from a world where the average person trusts institutions to a world where the average person doesn't. we've never been in a world where the average person trusts institutions you're in a tiny usa bubble established institutions in most of the world are openly corrupt, nepotistic, and kleptocratic, and they always have been, so average people trust their families and traditions, not institutions people in the usa are not average people