4 ms·

AI accelerates post-truth civilization

5 points by 13years 3y ago

hunglee2 3y ago
Post-truth might actually be ok It is possible that we become generally more skeptical of all 'produced information and therefore less easily propagandised by those with an agenda to push. As I have got older, I have realised that there is some value in being less certain. One thing haters (of whichever persuasion) seem to have in common is conviction to their cause, a position which can only be arrived at if you have been priorly convinced that it *is* possible to discover the absolute truth, and that you have been amongst the select few who had superior qualities to do so.
- 13years 3y ago
  I believe we are well on that path already. As I point out in the article all means of measuring trust are on significant declines. However, reaching a point where nothing is trusted will likely lead to societal disfunction. If no institution is perceived as legitimate and no information can be verified there will be a breakdown of social order. If elections and politics seemed chaotic already over the last few years, it likely will pale in comparison to what is coming.
  - hunglee2 3y ago
    I think you might be right, but I think you could also be wrong. The fork in the road is whether trust-less = anarchy or apathy. I think the latter is more likely, given that only those who are fooled once are less likely be to fooled again. We will certainly see increased political polarisation but perhaps politics entirely becomes a marginal concern for extremists, whilst everyone else gets on with their day.
    - 13years 3y ago
      > only those who are fooled once are less likely be to fooled again True, but in this unfolding scenario of truth becomes extraordinarily difficult to impossible to determine, there is no option of not being fooled again. The only lesson learned is that all information is suspect. What remains from there is simply not participating in the game at all. Not sure how that works out. Nonetheless, for a "stable" society it doesn't really require absolute truth, but just the belief there is a common truth. It may be the case that somehow institutions are still able to present this illusion in enough of a convincing manner that there isn't a total breakdown. I suppose another option is that nobody cares about truth as long as their perceived needs are met. As they are happy in their gilded cage so long as it remains nicely gilded. I suppose this is nothing new. Not a new trick of society. Just the question how long can it hold up under worsening conditions.
      - hotpotamus 3y ago
        Nietzsche was onto this impressively early in modernity with the Death of God. > The last man is the archetypal passive nihilist. He is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security. I don't really see any alternative myself.
        13years 3y ago
        Indeed. In nature we have observed social behavioral traps like the ants circle of death. On a more complex and longer timescale, I wonder if humans have entered their own such trap.
      - hunglee2 3y ago
        > The only lesson learned is that all information is suspect. This is the only reality we can trust. I cannot help but think the anxiety we feel about truthlessness is rooted in the Abrahamic tradition, which promised the end to ambiguity, because clearly this is The Truth. I seek some solace in the Eastern tradition, where the first step toward knowledge is acceptance of unknowing. It is true that Buddhists do indeed tend to 'check out' of society, which I do not agree with, but I think we can learn something from how they handle ambiguity of reality.

5 points by 13years 3y ago

Post-truth might actually be ok It is possible that we become generally more skeptical of all 'produced information and therefore less easily propagandised by those with an agenda to push. As I have got older, I have realised that there is some value in being less certain. One thing haters (of whichever persuasion) seem to have in common is conviction to their cause, a position which can only be arrived at if you have been priorly convinced that it *is* possible to discover the absolute truth, and that you have been amongst the select few who had superior qualities to do so.

13years 3y ago
I believe we are well on that path already. As I point out in the article all means of measuring trust are on significant declines. However, reaching a point where nothing is trusted will likely lead to societal disfunction. If no institution is perceived as legitimate and no information can be verified there will be a breakdown of social order. If elections and politics seemed chaotic already over the last few years, it likely will pale in comparison to what is coming.
- hunglee2 3y ago
  I think you might be right, but I think you could also be wrong. The fork in the road is whether trust-less = anarchy or apathy. I think the latter is more likely, given that only those who are fooled once are less likely be to fooled again. We will certainly see increased political polarisation but perhaps politics entirely becomes a marginal concern for extremists, whilst everyone else gets on with their day.
  - 13years 3y ago
    > only those who are fooled once are less likely be to fooled again True, but in this unfolding scenario of truth becomes extraordinarily difficult to impossible to determine, there is no option of not being fooled again. The only lesson learned is that all information is suspect. What remains from there is simply not participating in the game at all. Not sure how that works out. Nonetheless, for a "stable" society it doesn't really require absolute truth, but just the belief there is a common truth. It may be the case that somehow institutions are still able to present this illusion in enough of a convincing manner that there isn't a total breakdown. I suppose another option is that nobody cares about truth as long as their perceived needs are met. As they are happy in their gilded cage so long as it remains nicely gilded. I suppose this is nothing new. Not a new trick of society. Just the question how long can it hold up under worsening conditions.
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      Nietzsche was onto this impressively early in modernity with the Death of God. > The last man is the archetypal passive nihilist. He is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security. I don't really see any alternative myself.
      - 13years 3y ago
        Indeed. In nature we have observed social behavioral traps like the ants circle of death. On a more complex and longer timescale, I wonder if humans have entered their own such trap.
    - hunglee2 3y ago
      > The only lesson learned is that all information is suspect. This is the only reality we can trust. I cannot help but think the anxiety we feel about truthlessness is rooted in the Abrahamic tradition, which promised the end to ambiguity, because clearly this is The Truth. I seek some solace in the Eastern tradition, where the first step toward knowledge is acceptance of unknowing. It is true that Buddhists do indeed tend to 'check out' of society, which I do not agree with, but I think we can learn something from how they handle ambiguity of reality.