3 ms·

>but trying to centralize critical thinking will have far more disastrous results No. Having sources of trust is the basis of managing complexity. When you tur

>but trying to centralize critical thinking will have far more disastrous results No. Having sources of trust is the basis of managing complexity. When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether its healthy right? You trust the medicine you buy contains exactly what is says on the label and didn't take a chemistry class. That's centralized trust. You rely on it ten thousand times a day implicitly. There need to be measures to make sure media content is trustworthy, because the smartest person on the earth doesn't have enough resources to critically judge 1% of what they're exposed to every day. It is simply a question of information processing. It's a mathematical necessity. Information that is collectively processed constantly goes up, individiual bandwith does not, therefore you need more division of labor, efficieny and higher forms of social organisation.

nonethewiser 3y ago
> Having sources of trust is the basis of managing complexity. This is a false equivalence that I’ve already addressed. > When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether its healthy right? To a degree, yeah, you do check. Especially when you get it from somewhere with prior problems. And if you see something off you check further and adjust accordingly. Why resort to anology? Should we blindly trust YouTube to judge whats true or not? I stated that labeling videos is fine but what’s not fine is blindly trusting it. Additionally, comparing to meat dispenses with all the controversy because food safety is a comparatively objective standard. Compare, “is this steak safe to eat or not?” To “is this speech safe to hear or not?”
xarope 3y ago
I'm probably paraphrasing Schneier (and getting it wrong), but getting water from the tap and having it polluted or poisonous, has legal and criminal consequences. Similarly getting meat from a butcher and having it tainted. Right now, getting videos which are completely AI/deepfaked to misrepresent, are not subject to the same consequences, simply because either #1 people can't be bothered, #2 are too busy spreading it via social media, or #3 have no idea how to sue the party on the other side. And therein lies the danger, as with social media, of the lack of consequences (and hence the popularity of swatting, pretexting etc)

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Having sources of trust is the basis of managing complexity. This is a false equivalence that I’ve already addressed. > When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether its healthy right? To a degree, yeah, you do check. Especially when you get it from somewhere with prior problems. And if you see something off you check further and adjust accordingly. Why resort to anology? Should we blindly trust YouTube to judge whats true or not? I stated that labeling videos is fine but what’s not fine is blindly trusting it. Additionally, comparing to meat dispenses with all the controversy because food safety is a comparatively objective standard. Compare, “is this steak safe to eat or not?” To “is this speech safe to hear or not?”

xarope 3y ago

I'm probably paraphrasing Schneier (and getting it wrong), but getting water from the tap and having it polluted or poisonous, has legal and criminal consequences. Similarly getting meat from a butcher and having it tainted. Right now, getting videos which are completely AI/deepfaked to misrepresent, are not subject to the same consequences, simply because either #1 people can't be bothered, #2 are too busy spreading it via social media, or #3 have no idea how to sue the party on the other side. And therein lies the danger, as with social media, of the lack of consequences (and hence the popularity of swatting, pretexting etc)