4 ms·

Isn’t the aspiration to be unbiased worthy already? The goal or call it “aspiration” to serve unbiased news is admirable to me, even while my rational mind kno

Isn’t the aspiration to be unbiased worthy already? The goal or call it “aspiration” to serve unbiased news is admirable to me, even while my rational mind knows the aspiration is an unattainable ideal. I will give them a try. Then I can judge their sincerity and performance relative to their aspiration. Edit: added “judge”

numbsafari 3y ago
How can you judge the relative distance from a fiction? Who defines what is “unbiased”? What are their biases? You cannot measure something that exists in a fiction that resides independently in each person’s mind. Objective reality exists, but objective observers do not.
- revelio 3y ago
  So you don't Believe In Science, friend? ;) Objective observation is really hard, but amenable to systems and rules that help get closer to this ideal. I'm convinced it's possible to do far better than existing news organisations do just through approaching it with an engineering mindset.
  - newsnotfound 3y ago
    That's something I've realised after reading these comments - that the goal of the project isn't to be 100% unbiased. To be even 90% unbiased is 90% better than a sensationalist source. I'm sure we can get very close to 100% as LLMs progress and if more talented people contribute to the project.
  - numbsafari 3y ago
    I do believe in science, I think perhaps you have a very biased, or at least limited, view of what “believing in science” means. There is no way to judge whether or not you are close to some objective view of “unbiased news”. So it is not a worthwhile pursuit. As others have noted, what is “newsworthy” is an entirely subjective prioritization of events and information. Are four deaths in Riverside news? Are four deaths in Palm Springs? Are both? Are neither? It depends on your subjective priorities, as a consumer, and no single news organization is ever going to achieve universal, subjective, but somehow unbiased news prioritization. Labeling anyone person or group’s prioritization of information as “truth” is a dubious endeavor. Dubious to the point of being laughable.
- joelegner 3y ago
  It sounds to me like you want to rely on quantifiable science in all things. Yes science is founded upon math which is founded upon logic. Both math and logic are axiomatic systems, and axioms are assumed or declared. They are not independent of a person's mind either. You cannot escape it. David Hume sorted it out for us long ago. Rational certainty is a pipe dream. But that need not prevent us from navigating this world and enjoying life. Back to the topic: we seem to be talking about a human being choosing between competing news sources. As that consumer, you get to define "unbiased" for yourself. Wise people have given it a lot of thought, so you might consider consulting what they said. And you can draw the line at something being measurable to matter to you. That's your choice. I have found the things that matter most are fictions in my brain: love comes to mind. It is also not necessary to measure to detect a distance. I love my dog, and I love my child. I cannot measure love, yet I detect a significant distance between my love for my dog and my love for my child. Like love, "bias" has meaning even if it cannot be measured. Like love, one can detect distances between biases, even if they cannot be measured. Science (measurement), math (quantity), and logic (relations of ideas) are just as ephemeral, because they are founded upon unprovable axioms and norms.
newsnotfound 3y ago
Thank you. I'd love to hear your thoughts after giving the site a try (please use the contact page on the website). It is by no means perfect right now, but the goal is to get as close to perfect as possible. Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral right now, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.

numbsafari 3y ago

How can you judge the relative distance from a fiction? Who defines what is “unbiased”? What are their biases? You cannot measure something that exists in a fiction that resides independently in each person’s mind. Objective reality exists, but objective observers do not.

revelio 3y ago
So you don't Believe In Science, friend? ;) Objective observation is really hard, but amenable to systems and rules that help get closer to this ideal. I'm convinced it's possible to do far better than existing news organisations do just through approaching it with an engineering mindset.
- newsnotfound 3y ago
  That's something I've realised after reading these comments - that the goal of the project isn't to be 100% unbiased. To be even 90% unbiased is 90% better than a sensationalist source. I'm sure we can get very close to 100% as LLMs progress and if more talented people contribute to the project.
- numbsafari 3y ago
  I do believe in science, I think perhaps you have a very biased, or at least limited, view of what “believing in science” means. There is no way to judge whether or not you are close to some objective view of “unbiased news”. So it is not a worthwhile pursuit. As others have noted, what is “newsworthy” is an entirely subjective prioritization of events and information. Are four deaths in Riverside news? Are four deaths in Palm Springs? Are both? Are neither? It depends on your subjective priorities, as a consumer, and no single news organization is ever going to achieve universal, subjective, but somehow unbiased news prioritization. Labeling anyone person or group’s prioritization of information as “truth” is a dubious endeavor. Dubious to the point of being laughable.
joelegner 3y ago
It sounds to me like you want to rely on quantifiable science in all things. Yes science is founded upon math which is founded upon logic. Both math and logic are axiomatic systems, and axioms are assumed or declared. They are not independent of a person's mind either. You cannot escape it. David Hume sorted it out for us long ago. Rational certainty is a pipe dream. But that need not prevent us from navigating this world and enjoying life. Back to the topic: we seem to be talking about a human being choosing between competing news sources. As that consumer, you get to define "unbiased" for yourself. Wise people have given it a lot of thought, so you might consider consulting what they said. And you can draw the line at something being measurable to matter to you. That's your choice. I have found the things that matter most are fictions in my brain: love comes to mind. It is also not necessary to measure to detect a distance. I love my dog, and I love my child. I cannot measure love, yet I detect a significant distance between my love for my dog and my love for my child. Like love, "bias" has meaning even if it cannot be measured. Like love, one can detect distances between biases, even if they cannot be measured. Science (measurement), math (quantity), and logic (relations of ideas) are just as ephemeral, because they are founded upon unprovable axioms and norms.

newsnotfound 3y ago

Thank you. I'd love to hear your thoughts after giving the site a try (please use the contact page on the website). It is by no means perfect right now, but the goal is to get as close to perfect as possible. Even if NewsNotFound articles are only 90% neutral right now, that's 90% BETTER than reading the same story from a sensationalist source.