4 ms·

It needs to explain the method. For reproducibility. Nothing clear in the blog post but everything is well explained in the research paper. Kudo for that. It s

by _ache_ 3y ago

It needs to explain the method. For reproducibility. Nothing clear in the blog post but everything is well explained in the research paper. Kudo for that. It seems solid. But I would like to have the same study with an human conversation instead of an AI one.

ryandvm 3y ago
I think LLMs would actually do better at this than a human because the whole problem with debunking this stuff is that the anti-facts come at a pace that no human can sustainably refute in real time. It's always "well, my cousin's friend's kid got autism right after getting a vaccine" and before you can look up the necessary studies to refute it, they're already talking about hydroxychloroquine. An AI *that the user trusts* is going to be much more effective at that sort of whack-a-mole.
- 13years 3y ago
  Agreed, the speed of response is one of the attributes I called out in the post. Of course the AI will never fail. If there is no evidence it still can create the evidence at the same pace. In other words, the AI can also produce anti-facts at a far greater pace and with far more convincing language.
  - _ache_ 3y ago
    I think too. But I want to check and to quantify. It is also about improving human speech too, what can we do to match AI performance ? I think, that are some very interesting questions that it may helps to answer. How can we make AI even better at « brainwashing » ? Does the value of information matter ? I mean is it easier to AI to « nullifies conspiracy beliefs » or to « nullifies scientific ones » ? We may have opinions on these issues, but the scientific reality behind them is not obvious. It's so exciting !
- _ache_ 3y ago
  Interesting, that's true. Is it the only effect ? I'm not sure. From this study, it doesn't seems that speed mater that much here since it was a short conversation with a fixed subject. You introduce a new variable in the equation. Trust. I think that is justified and its posing a whole set of new questions. I would like to answer them but I can't.

by _ache_ 3y ago

ryandvm 3y ago

I think LLMs would actually do better at this than a human because the whole problem with debunking this stuff is that the anti-facts come at a pace that no human can sustainably refute in real time. It's always "well, my cousin's friend's kid got autism right after getting a vaccine" and before you can look up the necessary studies to refute it, they're already talking about hydroxychloroquine. An AI *that the user trusts* is going to be much more effective at that sort of whack-a-mole.

13years 3y ago
Agreed, the speed of response is one of the attributes I called out in the post. Of course the AI will never fail. If there is no evidence it still can create the evidence at the same pace. In other words, the AI can also produce anti-facts at a far greater pace and with far more convincing language.
- _ache_ 3y ago
  I think too. But I want to check and to quantify. It is also about improving human speech too, what can we do to match AI performance ? I think, that are some very interesting questions that it may helps to answer. How can we make AI even better at « brainwashing » ? Does the value of information matter ? I mean is it easier to AI to « nullifies conspiracy beliefs » or to « nullifies scientific ones » ? We may have opinions on these issues, but the scientific reality behind them is not obvious. It's so exciting !
_ache_ 3y ago
Interesting, that's true. Is it the only effect ? I'm not sure. From this study, it doesn't seems that speed mater that much here since it was a short conversation with a fixed subject. You introduce a new variable in the equation. Trust. I think that is justified and its posing a whole set of new questions. I would like to answer them but I can't.