7 ms·

Not familiar with FOL as a formalism, and would love to see this in action. I feel like it's a big part of the solution to propaganda. The other part seems to

Not familiar with FOL as a formalism, and would love to see this in action. I feel like it's a big part of the solution to propaganda. The other part seems to be values obfuscation, and I wonder if this would help with that too. If Joe says that nails are bad, it can mean very different things if Joe builds houses for a living and prefers screws, or if Joe is anti development and thinks everyone should live in mud huts. Propaganda will often cast a whole narrative that can be logically consistent, but entirely misrepresents a person or people's values (their motivations and the patterns that explain their actions), and there will be logical fallacies at the boundaries of the narrative. We need systems that can detect logical fallacies, as well as value system inconsistencies.

andrewdb 2y ago
A prompt that I like to use for this: --- Intake the following block of text and then formulate it as a steelmanned deductive argument. Use the format of premises and conclusion. After the argument, list possible fallacies in the argument. DO NOT fact check - simply analyze the logic. do not search. After the fallacies list, show the following: 1. Evaluate Argument Strength: Assess the strength of each premise and the overall argument. 2. Provide Counterarguments: Suggest possible counterarguments to the premises and conclusion. 3. Highlight Assumptions: Identify any underlying assumptions that need examination. 4. Suggest Improvements: Recommend ways to strengthen the argument's logical structure. 5. Test with Scenarios: Apply the argument to various scenarios to see how it holds up. 6. Analyze Relevance: Check the relevance and connection between each premise and the conclusion. Format the argument in the following manner: Premise N: Premise N Text ETC Conclusion: Conclusion text [The block of text to evaluate]
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  Nice prompt, I've been doing something similar but not this robust. I'll give this a spin. Thanks again!
heyitsguay 2y ago
Humans aren't rational actors who get tricked into embracing propaganda by subtle logical fallacies. This will be of no more help than fact checking. It's a neat project on its own, tbc, I just have very low expectations of broader impact.
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  I disagree with your first point. People are far more rational than you are making them out to be, it's just that they are rational within their own value system, not yours. Also today's propaganda is capable of adapting itself to each audience member's value system to make it more palatable, and then gradually nudge the audience towards the desired narrative/beliefs/values. The systems that distribute the propaganda are already analyzing people's values and using that information to manipulate people. I think that information asymmetry is part of the problem. I could be wrong, but I think flipping that dynamic around so the public can see the true values of the subjects of propaganda may help neutralize a lot of propaganda. As far as what impact this specific project will have, I have no idea. You may be right. I'm curious about its limitations and how it can be applied.
  - kubb 2y ago
    I thought so too, but recently so many people dropped or adapted their core beliefs to be able to support and defend people in power that they really love that it made me change my mind. Now I think that value systems are malleable and are formed by whatever makes us feel good. And the logical consistency on top is very optional.
    - FloorEgg 2y ago
      Or maybe these people you speak up assume that the people in power have values aligned with their own, and if there was an unbiased system that highlights value discrepancies using formal logic, they might not "love" those people as much anymore. What I assume you might be missing is that you are looking at the world through a different lens than these other people. Both you and they are consuming propaganda and can't detect it as propaganda because it aligns with your values. However it subtly nudges your values in a direction over time. I agree that people's values and core beliefs are malleable, but in the same way a tree trunk is. It may seem like these people have changed a lot and you haven't, but I think it's more likely that you've changed too, and that they've changed less than you think. No one is immune to propaganda, which is why anything that can help disarm it interests me.
naasking 2y ago
This won't "solve" propaganda or misinfo IMO. Checking logical consistency and eliminating fallacies still wouldn't address the selective presentation or omission of facts, for instance, and the notion that it could avoid misrepresenting a person or their values assumes that someone has already accurately and fully captured a detailed description of a person's values. But that's the whole problem! This is just the formal specification problem all over again. Verifying software against a spec is good and useful, but verification doesn't tell you whether the spec itself correctly captured the desired objective, it can only tell you whether the spec is logically consistent and that you implemented it faithfully.
janalsncm 2y ago
Maybe. One problem we have now is that fact checking is a lot more expensive than bullshitting. If we had a program that could bring things closer to parity it would be nice. But also, a lot of propaganda isn’t false per se but simply blown out of proportion, or underproportioned in cases of inconvenient truths. The truth is a distribution of events, and editors continuously choose how to skew that distribution. (One of my very interesting possessions is an old Chinese state-owned newspaper. As far as I could tell, their main tool wasn’t lying, but simply omission.) For example, if you wanted to push a narrative that e.g. pit bulls are the most dangerous problem in America, you would just post a nonstop stream of pit bull attack videos. It taps into cognitive biases people have which aren’t propositional logic statements. More broadly, the world is stochastic, at least in the way we experience it. So our brains have to make sense of that, which is an opportunity for narratives to creep in.
- drdeca 2y ago
  You mention the world being (at least subjectively) stochastic. This brings to mind the idea that a model of probability rather than just logic, might be more beneficial? The example you gave of focusing excessively on some topic in order to make it seem like a bigger deal… hm, is there a way we could formalize such things in a way like how formal fallacies are formalized? It seems more difficult than classifying common formal fallacies. But, might it be possible?
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    The problem is that “news” is not a random sampling of all events. It is biased by the very fact that someone has to decide the event is notable. And even if you were to witness a random sampling of all events via some kind of clockwork orange mechanism, your brain has saliency biases as well. You might find the wiki page on cognitive bias interesting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
- FloorEgg 2y ago
  So maybe the solution is to have these FOL capabilities close to the user and far from the information source. FOL values analysis of information streams, that manifest as user interface for configuring the algorithms that decide what information is surfaced to you in media. This is why I said this sort of thing might be part of a solution. The whole solution would involve other significant parts.
drdeca 2y ago
I don’t think it would take you long to learn FOL, and I think it is a good formalism to have some familiarity with. It’s pretty much the default modern formulation of general-purpose formal logic.
RGamma 2y ago
It would work as well the internet bringing us more enlightenment. Besides, points of contention tend to form around ethics, whose axioms are unprovable if non-cognitivism is true (and we have no reason to believe it isn't).
jfengel 2y ago
You know First Order Logic. It's just ordinary logic; it's the default thing people think of when they say "logic". But it's also not very useful for human reasoning. It's good for math and logic puzzles and bad at anything else. It's bad at time, at belief, at negation. None of those things act like you expect them to.
thomastjeffery 2y ago
The problem isn't values obfuscation. The problem is that many people, especially conservatives, do not care about values. Instead, they care about virtues. People who approach politics from a virtue ethics perspective are vulnerable to propaganda because logic and value have no bearing whatsoever on their decision to accept or reject a narrative. You can't think critically for someone else. They must do it on their own.
- drdeca 2y ago
  How are you differentiating between caring about values and caring about virtues?
  - thomastjeffery 2y ago
    A virtue exists at the beginning of a narrative. A value is a judgment of the narrative after the fact. One virtue common in conservative politics is competition. A healthy instance of capitalism is expected to benefit all participants by virtue of competitive markets. The value of our current instance of capitalism is that very large corporations make a lot of cool tech and sell it at low prices. But what about homelessness? Isn't that a real tangible negative value? Yes. What should we do about it? Well, a conservative will probably tell you that we should help homeless people by making housing (and homeless people) more competitive. But that's clearly not working! The system does not provide a value that we very seriously need! These arguments don't matter to conservatives, because to them, it's all about the virtues.
    - FloorEgg 2y ago
      You and I are using completely different definitions of "values". The definition my comment depended on was one where values act as a filter for actions (or patterns of actions). Drug addicts only value short-term highs (next fix). Someone else may value being a musician, being reliable, or being honest. In 2018 maybe someone would have bought a Tesla because they value being seen as progressive and value experiencing modern technology. Notice that all my examples start with a verb, which can often manifest as a way of being. I didn't bring up virtues, but my understanding of virtues is that they are values deemed by at least some to be objectively "good", such as the cardinal virtues. Whereas values can be both good or bad, such as masochists who value watching others suffer.

andrewdb 2y ago

A prompt that I like to use for this: --- Intake the following block of text and then formulate it as a steelmanned deductive argument. Use the format of premises and conclusion. After the argument, list possible fallacies in the argument. DO NOT fact check - simply analyze the logic. do not search. After the fallacies list, show the following: 1. Evaluate Argument Strength: Assess the strength of each premise and the overall argument. 2. Provide Counterarguments: Suggest possible counterarguments to the premises and conclusion. 3. Highlight Assumptions: Identify any underlying assumptions that need examination. 4. Suggest Improvements: Recommend ways to strengthen the argument's logical structure. 5. Test with Scenarios: Apply the argument to various scenarios to see how it holds up. 6. Analyze Relevance: Check the relevance and connection between each premise and the conclusion. Format the argument in the following manner: Premise N: Premise N Text ETC Conclusion: Conclusion text [The block of text to evaluate]

FloorEgg 2y ago
Nice prompt, I've been doing something similar but not this robust. I'll give this a spin. Thanks again!

heyitsguay 2y ago

Humans aren't rational actors who get tricked into embracing propaganda by subtle logical fallacies. This will be of no more help than fact checking. It's a neat project on its own, tbc, I just have very low expectations of broader impact.

FloorEgg 2y ago
I disagree with your first point. People are far more rational than you are making them out to be, it's just that they are rational within their own value system, not yours. Also today's propaganda is capable of adapting itself to each audience member's value system to make it more palatable, and then gradually nudge the audience towards the desired narrative/beliefs/values. The systems that distribute the propaganda are already analyzing people's values and using that information to manipulate people. I think that information asymmetry is part of the problem. I could be wrong, but I think flipping that dynamic around so the public can see the true values of the subjects of propaganda may help neutralize a lot of propaganda. As far as what impact this specific project will have, I have no idea. You may be right. I'm curious about its limitations and how it can be applied.
- kubb 2y ago
  I thought so too, but recently so many people dropped or adapted their core beliefs to be able to support and defend people in power that they really love that it made me change my mind. Now I think that value systems are malleable and are formed by whatever makes us feel good. And the logical consistency on top is very optional.
  - FloorEgg 2y ago
    Or maybe these people you speak up assume that the people in power have values aligned with their own, and if there was an unbiased system that highlights value discrepancies using formal logic, they might not "love" those people as much anymore. What I assume you might be missing is that you are looking at the world through a different lens than these other people. Both you and they are consuming propaganda and can't detect it as propaganda because it aligns with your values. However it subtly nudges your values in a direction over time. I agree that people's values and core beliefs are malleable, but in the same way a tree trunk is. It may seem like these people have changed a lot and you haven't, but I think it's more likely that you've changed too, and that they've changed less than you think. No one is immune to propaganda, which is why anything that can help disarm it interests me.

naasking 2y ago

This won't "solve" propaganda or misinfo IMO. Checking logical consistency and eliminating fallacies still wouldn't address the selective presentation or omission of facts, for instance, and the notion that it could avoid misrepresenting a person or their values assumes that someone has already accurately and fully captured a detailed description of a person's values. But that's the whole problem! This is just the formal specification problem all over again. Verifying software against a spec is good and useful, but verification doesn't tell you whether the spec itself correctly captured the desired objective, it can only tell you whether the spec is logically consistent and that you implemented it faithfully.

janalsncm 2y ago

Maybe. One problem we have now is that fact checking is a lot more expensive than bullshitting. If we had a program that could bring things closer to parity it would be nice. But also, a lot of propaganda isn’t false per se but simply blown out of proportion, or underproportioned in cases of inconvenient truths. The truth is a distribution of events, and editors continuously choose how to skew that distribution. (One of my very interesting possessions is an old Chinese state-owned newspaper. As far as I could tell, their main tool wasn’t lying, but simply omission.) For example, if you wanted to push a narrative that e.g. pit bulls are the most dangerous problem in America, you would just post a nonstop stream of pit bull attack videos. It taps into cognitive biases people have which aren’t propositional logic statements. More broadly, the world is stochastic, at least in the way we experience it. So our brains have to make sense of that, which is an opportunity for narratives to creep in.

drdeca 2y ago
You mention the world being (at least subjectively) stochastic. This brings to mind the idea that a model of probability rather than just logic, might be more beneficial? The example you gave of focusing excessively on some topic in order to make it seem like a bigger deal… hm, is there a way we could formalize such things in a way like how formal fallacies are formalized? It seems more difficult than classifying common formal fallacies. But, might it be possible?
- janalsncm 2y ago
  The problem is that “news” is not a random sampling of all events. It is biased by the very fact that someone has to decide the event is notable. And even if you were to witness a random sampling of all events via some kind of clockwork orange mechanism, your brain has saliency biases as well. You might find the wiki page on cognitive bias interesting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
FloorEgg 2y ago
So maybe the solution is to have these FOL capabilities close to the user and far from the information source. FOL values analysis of information streams, that manifest as user interface for configuring the algorithms that decide what information is surfaced to you in media. This is why I said this sort of thing might be part of a solution. The whole solution would involve other significant parts.

drdeca 2y ago

I don’t think it would take you long to learn FOL, and I think it is a good formalism to have some familiarity with. It’s pretty much the default modern formulation of general-purpose formal logic.

RGamma 2y ago

It would work as well the internet bringing us more enlightenment. Besides, points of contention tend to form around ethics, whose axioms are unprovable if non-cognitivism is true (and we have no reason to believe it isn't).

jfengel 2y ago

You know First Order Logic. It's just ordinary logic; it's the default thing people think of when they say "logic". But it's also not very useful for human reasoning. It's good for math and logic puzzles and bad at anything else. It's bad at time, at belief, at negation. None of those things act like you expect them to.

thomastjeffery 2y ago

The problem isn't values obfuscation. The problem is that many people, especially conservatives, do not care about values. Instead, they care about virtues. People who approach politics from a virtue ethics perspective are vulnerable to propaganda because logic and value have no bearing whatsoever on their decision to accept or reject a narrative. You can't think critically for someone else. They must do it on their own.

drdeca 2y ago
How are you differentiating between caring about values and caring about virtues?
- thomastjeffery 2y ago
  A virtue exists at the beginning of a narrative. A value is a judgment of the narrative after the fact. One virtue common in conservative politics is competition. A healthy instance of capitalism is expected to benefit all participants by virtue of competitive markets. The value of our current instance of capitalism is that very large corporations make a lot of cool tech and sell it at low prices. But what about homelessness? Isn't that a real tangible negative value? Yes. What should we do about it? Well, a conservative will probably tell you that we should help homeless people by making housing (and homeless people) more competitive. But that's clearly not working! The system does not provide a value that we very seriously need! These arguments don't matter to conservatives, because to them, it's all about the virtues.
  - FloorEgg 2y ago
    You and I are using completely different definitions of "values". The definition my comment depended on was one where values act as a filter for actions (or patterns of actions). Drug addicts only value short-term highs (next fix). Someone else may value being a musician, being reliable, or being honest. In 2018 maybe someone would have bought a Tesla because they value being seen as progressive and value experiencing modern technology. Notice that all my examples start with a verb, which can often manifest as a way of being. I didn't bring up virtues, but my understanding of virtues is that they are values deemed by at least some to be objectively "good", such as the cardinal virtues. Whereas values can be both good or bad, such as masochists who value watching others suffer.