4 ms·

> If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archiv

> If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare. Detection doesn't really matter, because people are too lazy to validate the facts, and reporters are not interested in reporting them. AI is simply another tool to manipulate people, like Wikipedia, Reddit.com, Twitter, or any other BS psuedo-authority. Think someone will actually crack open a book to prove the AI wrong? Not a chance.

crazygringo 3y ago
> and reporters are not interested in reporting them You really think that if the NYT started altering its past stories, other publications would just... ignore it? It would be a front-page scandal that the WaPo would be delighted to report on. As well as a hundred other news publications. Thankfully.
- ysleepy 3y ago
  That is maybe true for a small percentage of stories. You are also reducing this argument to the most construed straw man instead of engaging with the idea in earnest. If you can't alter world news headlines, you can still alter the tone of the article. If you can't alter front page news, you still can alter the remaining 95% of news. Influencing public opinion is more subtle than the one important headline per day. You are also ignoring the fact that news sites regularly edit published articles already, from fixed typos to corrections to large re-editings.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    You seem to be misunderstanding. This isn't about a small percentage of stories, it's not about tone, it's the fact that if the NYT ever did this even once with the intention to truly "alter the past" it would be a major scandal. And obviously things like corrections or taking down libelous content aren't included. So no, I'm not constructing any kind of straw man here. I'm saying that the threat of subtly nefariously "altering the past" isn't realistic because it would be caught and exposed and there's no financial motivation to do it in the first place.
    - ysleepy 3y ago
      You are misunderstanding. Altering the tone, comments, bias etc. is altering the past, this is what I meant originally. You came up with the straw man of the new york times. Sure, some high visibility publications are less able to be altered, but that doesn't mean none can in no way.

crazygringo 3y ago

> and reporters are not interested in reporting them You really think that if the NYT started altering its past stories, other publications would just... ignore it? It would be a front-page scandal that the WaPo would be delighted to report on. As well as a hundred other news publications. Thankfully.

ysleepy 3y ago
That is maybe true for a small percentage of stories. You are also reducing this argument to the most construed straw man instead of engaging with the idea in earnest. If you can't alter world news headlines, you can still alter the tone of the article. If you can't alter front page news, you still can alter the remaining 95% of news. Influencing public opinion is more subtle than the one important headline per day. You are also ignoring the fact that news sites regularly edit published articles already, from fixed typos to corrections to large re-editings.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  You seem to be misunderstanding. This isn't about a small percentage of stories, it's not about tone, it's the fact that if the NYT ever did this even once with the intention to truly "alter the past" it would be a major scandal. And obviously things like corrections or taking down libelous content aren't included. So no, I'm not constructing any kind of straw man here. I'm saying that the threat of subtly nefariously "altering the past" isn't realistic because it would be caught and exposed and there's no financial motivation to do it in the first place.
  - ysleepy 3y ago
    You are misunderstanding. Altering the tone, comments, bias etc. is altering the past, this is what I meant originally. You came up with the straw man of the new york times. Sure, some high visibility publications are less able to be altered, but that doesn't mean none can in no way.