3 ms·

> to understand any of the above to a useful level. The standard model for electrical current is not true, but it is still useful in the vast, vast, vast major

> to understand any of the above to a useful level. The standard model for electrical current is not true, but it is still useful in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases. True and useful are very different things. The conflation here is erroneous. The average person is never going to understand what is true in any meaningful way, and even those who focus on certain truths are going to be focused on very specific truths, not all truths. There is only so much time in the day. For everything else they have to work with simplified models that may be quite disconnected from reality, but as long as they work for all practical purposes, who cares? > And you are claiming that adding industrial-scale AI agents to the public 'conversation' at a scale never seen in history will have zero effect? Conversation only happens when people realize they are working with a faulty model, so if conversation keeps happening then that means people are realizing that the model they currently have doesn't work. What do you think is going to happen with more noise? If people can't find a usable model in a not-so-noisy environment, do you think they will suddenly be able to find one in a noisier environment? That seems quite unlikely. In reality, the outcome is the same either way. Maybe increased noise will turn more interest to the vetted environments and ignoring the noisy conversations, but if people are already not finding the vetted, the reality is that we are not likely to see change there either.

toss1 3y ago
>>The average person is never going to understand what is true in any meaningful way, Agree, but this means we are talking about two different topics. I'm talking at a functional level of truth; a base level of truths commonly understood in a society such that it can maintain cohesion. You're talking about deeply understood truths, like the 2+-hour discussion of quantum effects on the question of "why is the sky blue?" at a PhD's defense presentation. >> Conversation only happens when people realize they are working with a faulty model... what about when people actually have a good model, and a disinformation stream replaces that with a bad model, or causes them to just say 'nothing is true'? For your purposes of deep truth, sure, everyone knows almost nothing except maybe in their own tight discipline, so one noise level or another will make no difference. But at the level I'm talking about, common understanding of basic truths (the sky is blue, scattering, not a clue abt quantum effects), we are already seeing how increasing the noise level only by removing the Fairness Doctrine in broadcast media — society is significantly more fragmented. Automating and scaling those drivers of untruths is likely to accelerate the fragmentation.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > what about when people actually have a good model, and a disinformation stream replaces that with a bad model, or causes them to just say 'nothing is true'? Do they actually have a good model? Or a flawed model with good intentions? Global warming stands out as a prime example where many accepted the general idea in theory back when it was a novel concept, but under a flawed model, and when the flawed model didn't stand up to practical use the conversations began... There was an attempt to rebrand the idea as climate change to try and reset the clock, so to speak, but in many ways that only confused the issue further.

toss1 3y ago

>>The average person is never going to understand what is true in any meaningful way, Agree, but this means we are talking about two different topics. I'm talking at a functional level of truth; a base level of truths commonly understood in a society such that it can maintain cohesion. You're talking about deeply understood truths, like the 2+-hour discussion of quantum effects on the question of "why is the sky blue?" at a PhD's defense presentation. >> Conversation only happens when people realize they are working with a faulty model... what about when people actually have a good model, and a disinformation stream replaces that with a bad model, or causes them to just say 'nothing is true'? For your purposes of deep truth, sure, everyone knows almost nothing except maybe in their own tight discipline, so one noise level or another will make no difference. But at the level I'm talking about, common understanding of basic truths (the sky is blue, scattering, not a clue abt quantum effects), we are already seeing how increasing the noise level only by removing the Fairness Doctrine in broadcast media — society is significantly more fragmented. Automating and scaling those drivers of untruths is likely to accelerate the fragmentation.

randomdata 3y ago
> what about when people actually have a good model, and a disinformation stream replaces that with a bad model, or causes them to just say 'nothing is true'? Do they actually have a good model? Or a flawed model with good intentions? Global warming stands out as a prime example where many accepted the general idea in theory back when it was a novel concept, but under a flawed model, and when the flawed model didn't stand up to practical use the conversations began... There was an attempt to rebrand the idea as climate change to try and reset the clock, so to speak, but in many ways that only confused the issue further.