4 ms·

Can they be reprogrammed if they turned out to be right?

Retric 1y ago
A broken clock showing the correct time is still broken. Conspiracy thinking is based on many flawed assumptions such as the degree of overt coordination that exists in the world. There’s inherent differences between groups doing something out of incentives where they don’t need to communicate with each other and a conspiracy where they do. Collusion is tempting when 2 or 3 companies dominate a market but it breaks down if there’s several dozen etc.
- mantas 1y ago
  More like based on not trusting authority. And then trying to „do research“ on your own. Which frequently goes sideways. But not always. Just like mainstream approach. Sometimes it's correct, sometimes it's not. Growing up in a highly authority-averse context (early post-soviet era with many historical scars of governments/elite/etc-not-to-be-trusted)... It'd be best if people would both do research on their own AND have the means to do that research. Smart people going sideways sucks. But people believing authority without blinking is very dangerous too. Although it's convenient and sometimes beneficial. But in the long run IMO it's a ticking time bomb.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    That's what gets me, all these "skeptics" are actually entirely willing to trust people, it just has to be someone named RandomDude8914327 or Catturd or whatever.
    - mantas 1y ago
      I think the main point is those people do not trust anybody and look at facts-at-face-value only. And in many cases mainstream communication looks iffy with missing bits of information. Either because some information is classified or some officials feel that less information is better for whatever reason. While iffy sources go extra mile to present their stuff in a very detailed way.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        This seems generous in my view. COVID conspiracists who I talk to tend to be completely devoid of knowledge of basic, basic facts, and totally ignorant of the contents of actual primary sources. They are not curious enough to actually look at the primary sources, probably because it's tedious, but they love spending hours reading other idiots' interpretations of those sources.
        soco 1y ago
        That's because RandomDude8914327 doesn't bother with facts, they'll just build imaginary arguments to fit together nicely, thus generating something stable and logical and convincing- just devoid of reality.
        mantas 1y ago
        It depends where you draw the line who is COVID conspiracists. Is it only the batshit crazy people. Or is it people who e.g. stuck to lab-origin theory too?
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        I'm mostly referring to people who are in the vague, totally incoherent area of "COVID was a hoax/conspiracy to control people/inject vaccines" ballpark. High-confidence lab leak people are very often conspiracists, while "lab leak is possible (even >50% probable)" are usually not.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        I don't think this is even close to true. Most of my family are Trumpers, anti-vax, and covid-deniers. They will believe any asshat with a microphone and access to Spotify with next to zero thought. They explicitly DO NOT believe any reliable source. Their level of belief is inverse to how reliable the source is. If a rando with no background in anything says it, it's reliable. If a random doctor says it, it could be reliable but probably not. If multiple doctors say it, then it's definitely not true. It's manifested at this point into full science denial. I have one family member who won't take their high blood pressure medicine anymore because they think it's causing the hypertension. Sigh...
  - naught0 1y ago
    It's too bad the current conspiratorial crowd is winging on about election fraud, vaccines, and fluoride instead of in-plain-sight government corruption, regulatory capture, and obvious financial crimes. They blindly trust "authority," just not any credible one. I wonder if it's too late to start teaching media literacy and critical thinking.
    - mantas 1y ago
      I'm not very familiar with US, but over here „conspirational crowd“, based on thinking patterns, is very diverse. But media seems to flag as „conspirational“ only a portion of it that comes to vaccines. And a lot of people who had issues with vaccines also have issues with corruption and other, let's say, tricky topics. Yet if we want to stop „conspirational“ crowd and make people fall in line with some topics, I'd be worried that it'd affect people concerned with other topics too.
  - Retric 1y ago
    I don’t think it’s about trusting authority or not, it’s about how you construct a consistent model of the world and deal with conflicting bits of information. There’s a willingness in some people to consider some grand conspiracy is lying for complex reasons without considering the possibility that the person talking about it is lying to you or just mistaken for mundane reasons. Perhaps the medical establishment lying to you, or it’s the guy trying to sell you healing crystals. Other times it’s more subtle conflict such as the ‘healing power of touch’ vs ‘touch fulfilling a physiological need’ where it’s easy to exaggerate a subtle misunderstanding to a wildly inaccurate idea.
- hello_computer 1y ago
  > degree of overt coordination that exists in the world It's called a paycheck. The execs make a call, and thousands of petty technicians are set into motion. If any of them are reckless enough to voice a reservation, no one is irreplaceable.
  - Retric 1y ago
    That’s still dependent on groups of execs presumably at different companies making some call. Shit oil prices are higher time to raise rates doesn’t require airlines to talk to each other. Shit LA to NYC route is getting really competitive let’s all agree to raise rates does.
    - hello_computer 1y ago
      Same execs on the boards of a dozen different companies in the same space--all went to the same schools, attend the same fundraisers, live in the same cities in the same neighborhoods, getting the same advice from the same management consultants... Leave me to my conspiracy thinking and I will leave you to your complacency thinking.
      - Retric 1y ago
        > on the boards of a dozen different companies Which is a great explanation for the rise in executive compensation at the expense of shareholders. It’s not so great an explanation for criminal conspiracies on its own.
        hello_computer 1y ago
        Could care less about shareholders and compensation. They poison the world--physically and spiritually. It is crime on the largest scale, and all our little professors here chomp at the bit for a piece of the action. Zuck or Elon or Jamie Dimon or Sam Altman... says "Jump!" They reply, "How high?," jump, then bitch about it (anonymously)--here or on Bluesky, in the vaguest and most non-incriminating of terms--rinse and repeat. responding here since rate-limited: It has been estimated that up to 40% of Coca-Cola's annual revenue comes from the food stamp program. When a bipartisan effort arose to remove that poison from the schedule, the industry's lobbyists and non-profits were engaged, and set about making the removal into a racial issue. They succeeded, and the politicians promptly backed-off. "Just incentives" doesn't fly when the incentives themselves come from a single source, directed by unelected administrators, who may be subject to considerable private pressure. "All professions are conspiracies against the laity." - George Bernard Shaw
- squidbeak 1y ago
  Janan Ganesh's explanation[1] is pretty good, in essence that a university education often means missing out on the life experience that instills common sense, so its missing or stunted later when spare intellectual energy needs a touchstone. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/1dbc675b-944d-4fb3-8889-6be7526cf11e https://www.ft.com/content/1dbc675b-944d-4fb3-8889-6be7526cf...
  - soco 1y ago
    I can't read that not having a subscription to FT, but I'd say you'll have way more conspiracy theorists in the less educated people. Is the article of a different opinion?
    - tim333 1y ago
      https://archive.ph/nNk0V https://archive.ph/nNk0V
      - soco 1y ago
        Thank you! All the article shows for this context is that people in higher places tend to get self-serving. I don't think (or, there's not much evidence) that McNamara or Musk actually believed what they're spreading, but they definitely saw value for themselves in spreading it. So spreading they did.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories, but it's fun to recognize that the reasons you highlight makes such theories very unlikely rather than actually impossible. That means that given enough hypotheses, some will turn out to be true. Imperfect examples that come to mind include Watergate, the Snowden revelations or Big Pharma's role in the opioid crisis. I think of it whenever I hear a tin-hat theory - it's probably fantasy but from time to time it isn't.
- normalaccess 1y ago
  You do realize that the term "Conspiracy Theory" was created by the CIA as a psychological operation directly targeting he American public to suppress truth about the Kennedy assassination? The truth is the game was rigged from the start.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    Unless the CIA has a time machine, I don't see how that's possible. The earliest known usage is from 1863, about 84 years before the CIA was founded.
mantas 1y ago
That's the beauty :)
mike_hearn 1y ago
No because this particular study re-defines the term "conspiracy theory" to mean an untrue or unproven conspiracy. Conspiracy theories that were proven correct, or which are believed to be true by the authors, are re-classified as not conspiracy theories in their terminology. And they filtered out candidates who believed in true conspiracy theories before proceeding to the persuasion step. Check their supplementary materials to see it. Here is the prompt they used to filter out candidates based on their chosen theory: "Your task is to determine whether a given statement describes a conspiracy theory or not. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by powerful people or organizations, often without credible evidence. Conspiracy theories often involve claims of secret plots, coverups, or the manipulation of information by influential groups." This is a reasonable definition of a conspiracy theory. But then the prompt goes on to say: "Here are some examples of conspiracy theories: 1. The moon landing was faked by the U.S. government to win the space race. 2. The COVID-19 pandemic was planned and orchestrated by pharmaceutical companies to profit from vaccine sales. 3. Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians to gain funding and control the population. And here are some examples of statements that are not conspiracy theories: 4. The Watergate scandal involved a cover-up of illegal activities by the Nixon administration. 5. The tobacco industry concealed the harmful effects of smoking for many years. 6. Corporate lobbying influences political decisions in favor of special interests." i.e. stating that companies lobby politicians to advance their interests and affect politics isn't a conspiracy theory, but stating that climate academics do the exact same thing for the same reasons is. This is an incoherent set of instructions that reflects the author's ideology, in particular, the standard left wing assumption that people who work in the public sector don't have personal biases or interests. The authors appear to believe they're asking GPT-4 to exclude people who believe in true things, but in reality it's being instructed to filter out candidates based on their politics. Given that they're not using a valid definition of conspiracy theory, it seems doubtful that this paper's claims would replicate in the real world if applied more fairly. Given that they were fantastically lazy (not validating anything by hand, 100% blind trust in the AI), it may not even replicate within the narrow academic context either.

A broken clock showing the correct time is still broken. Conspiracy thinking is based on many flawed assumptions such as the degree of overt coordination that exists in the world. There’s inherent differences between groups doing something out of incentives where they don’t need to communicate with each other and a conspiracy where they do. Collusion is tempting when 2 or 3 companies dominate a market but it breaks down if there’s several dozen etc.

mantas 1y ago
More like based on not trusting authority. And then trying to „do research“ on your own. Which frequently goes sideways. But not always. Just like mainstream approach. Sometimes it's correct, sometimes it's not. Growing up in a highly authority-averse context (early post-soviet era with many historical scars of governments/elite/etc-not-to-be-trusted)... It'd be best if people would both do research on their own AND have the means to do that research. Smart people going sideways sucks. But people believing authority without blinking is very dangerous too. Although it's convenient and sometimes beneficial. But in the long run IMO it's a ticking time bomb.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  That's what gets me, all these "skeptics" are actually entirely willing to trust people, it just has to be someone named RandomDude8914327 or Catturd or whatever.
  - mantas 1y ago
    I think the main point is those people do not trust anybody and look at facts-at-face-value only. And in many cases mainstream communication looks iffy with missing bits of information. Either because some information is classified or some officials feel that less information is better for whatever reason. While iffy sources go extra mile to present their stuff in a very detailed way.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      This seems generous in my view. COVID conspiracists who I talk to tend to be completely devoid of knowledge of basic, basic facts, and totally ignorant of the contents of actual primary sources. They are not curious enough to actually look at the primary sources, probably because it's tedious, but they love spending hours reading other idiots' interpretations of those sources.
      - soco 1y ago
        That's because RandomDude8914327 doesn't bother with facts, they'll just build imaginary arguments to fit together nicely, thus generating something stable and logical and convincing- just devoid of reality.
      - mantas 1y ago
        It depends where you draw the line who is COVID conspiracists. Is it only the batshit crazy people. Or is it people who e.g. stuck to lab-origin theory too?
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        I'm mostly referring to people who are in the vague, totally incoherent area of "COVID was a hoax/conspiracy to control people/inject vaccines" ballpark. High-confidence lab leak people are very often conspiracists, while "lab leak is possible (even >50% probable)" are usually not.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      I don't think this is even close to true. Most of my family are Trumpers, anti-vax, and covid-deniers. They will believe any asshat with a microphone and access to Spotify with next to zero thought. They explicitly DO NOT believe any reliable source. Their level of belief is inverse to how reliable the source is. If a rando with no background in anything says it, it's reliable. If a random doctor says it, it could be reliable but probably not. If multiple doctors say it, then it's definitely not true. It's manifested at this point into full science denial. I have one family member who won't take their high blood pressure medicine anymore because they think it's causing the hypertension. Sigh...
- naught0 1y ago
  It's too bad the current conspiratorial crowd is winging on about election fraud, vaccines, and fluoride instead of in-plain-sight government corruption, regulatory capture, and obvious financial crimes. They blindly trust "authority," just not any credible one. I wonder if it's too late to start teaching media literacy and critical thinking.
  - mantas 1y ago
    I'm not very familiar with US, but over here „conspirational crowd“, based on thinking patterns, is very diverse. But media seems to flag as „conspirational“ only a portion of it that comes to vaccines. And a lot of people who had issues with vaccines also have issues with corruption and other, let's say, tricky topics. Yet if we want to stop „conspirational“ crowd and make people fall in line with some topics, I'd be worried that it'd affect people concerned with other topics too.
- Retric 1y ago
  I don’t think it’s about trusting authority or not, it’s about how you construct a consistent model of the world and deal with conflicting bits of information. There’s a willingness in some people to consider some grand conspiracy is lying for complex reasons without considering the possibility that the person talking about it is lying to you or just mistaken for mundane reasons. Perhaps the medical establishment lying to you, or it’s the guy trying to sell you healing crystals. Other times it’s more subtle conflict such as the ‘healing power of touch’ vs ‘touch fulfilling a physiological need’ where it’s easy to exaggerate a subtle misunderstanding to a wildly inaccurate idea.
hello_computer 1y ago
> degree of overt coordination that exists in the world It's called a paycheck. The execs make a call, and thousands of petty technicians are set into motion. If any of them are reckless enough to voice a reservation, no one is irreplaceable.
- Retric 1y ago
  That’s still dependent on groups of execs presumably at different companies making some call. Shit oil prices are higher time to raise rates doesn’t require airlines to talk to each other. Shit LA to NYC route is getting really competitive let’s all agree to raise rates does.
  - hello_computer 1y ago
    Same execs on the boards of a dozen different companies in the same space--all went to the same schools, attend the same fundraisers, live in the same cities in the same neighborhoods, getting the same advice from the same management consultants... Leave me to my conspiracy thinking and I will leave you to your complacency thinking.
    - Retric 1y ago
      > on the boards of a dozen different companies Which is a great explanation for the rise in executive compensation at the expense of shareholders. It’s not so great an explanation for criminal conspiracies on its own.
      - hello_computer 1y ago
        Could care less about shareholders and compensation. They poison the world--physically and spiritually. It is crime on the largest scale, and all our little professors here chomp at the bit for a piece of the action. Zuck or Elon or Jamie Dimon or Sam Altman... says "Jump!" They reply, "How high?," jump, then bitch about it (anonymously)--here or on Bluesky, in the vaguest and most non-incriminating of terms--rinse and repeat. responding here since rate-limited: It has been estimated that up to 40% of Coca-Cola's annual revenue comes from the food stamp program. When a bipartisan effort arose to remove that poison from the schedule, the industry's lobbyists and non-profits were engaged, and set about making the removal into a racial issue. They succeeded, and the politicians promptly backed-off. "Just incentives" doesn't fly when the incentives themselves come from a single source, directed by unelected administrators, who may be subject to considerable private pressure. "All professions are conspiracies against the laity." - George Bernard Shaw
squidbeak 1y ago
Janan Ganesh's explanation[1] is pretty good, in essence that a university education often means missing out on the life experience that instills common sense, so its missing or stunted later when spare intellectual energy needs a touchstone. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/1dbc675b-944d-4fb3-8889-6be7526cf11e https://www.ft.com/content/1dbc675b-944d-4fb3-8889-6be7526cf...
- soco 1y ago
  I can't read that not having a subscription to FT, but I'd say you'll have way more conspiracy theorists in the less educated people. Is the article of a different opinion?
  - tim333 1y ago
    https://archive.ph/nNk0V https://archive.ph/nNk0V
    - soco 1y ago
      Thank you! All the article shows for this context is that people in higher places tend to get self-serving. I don't think (or, there's not much evidence) that McNamara or Musk actually believed what they're spreading, but they definitely saw value for themselves in spreading it. So spreading they did.
rich_sasha 1y ago
I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories, but it's fun to recognize that the reasons you highlight makes such theories very unlikely rather than actually impossible. That means that given enough hypotheses, some will turn out to be true. Imperfect examples that come to mind include Watergate, the Snowden revelations or Big Pharma's role in the opioid crisis. I think of it whenever I hear a tin-hat theory - it's probably fantasy but from time to time it isn't.
normalaccess 1y ago
You do realize that the term "Conspiracy Theory" was created by the CIA as a psychological operation directly targeting he American public to suppress truth about the Kennedy assassination? The truth is the game was rigged from the start.
- Aloisius 1y ago
  Unless the CIA has a time machine, I don't see how that's possible. The earliest known usage is from 1863, about 84 years before the CIA was founded.

mantas 1y ago

That's the beauty :)

mike_hearn 1y ago

No because this particular study re-defines the term "conspiracy theory" to mean an untrue or unproven conspiracy. Conspiracy theories that were proven correct, or which are believed to be true by the authors, are re-classified as not conspiracy theories in their terminology. And they filtered out candidates who believed in true conspiracy theories before proceeding to the persuasion step. Check their supplementary materials to see it. Here is the prompt they used to filter out candidates based on their chosen theory: "Your task is to determine whether a given statement describes a conspiracy theory or not. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by powerful people or organizations, often without credible evidence. Conspiracy theories often involve claims of secret plots, coverups, or the manipulation of information by influential groups." This is a reasonable definition of a conspiracy theory. But then the prompt goes on to say: "Here are some examples of conspiracy theories: 1. The moon landing was faked by the U.S. government to win the space race. 2. The COVID-19 pandemic was planned and orchestrated by pharmaceutical companies to profit from vaccine sales. 3. Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists and politicians to gain funding and control the population. And here are some examples of statements that are not conspiracy theories: 4. The Watergate scandal involved a cover-up of illegal activities by the Nixon administration. 5. The tobacco industry concealed the harmful effects of smoking for many years. 6. Corporate lobbying influences political decisions in favor of special interests." i.e. stating that companies lobby politicians to advance their interests and affect politics isn't a conspiracy theory, but stating that climate academics do the exact same thing for the same reasons is. This is an incoherent set of instructions that reflects the author's ideology, in particular, the standard left wing assumption that people who work in the public sector don't have personal biases or interests. The authors appear to believe they're asking GPT-4 to exclude people who believe in true things, but in reality it's being instructed to filter out candidates based on their politics. Given that they're not using a valid definition of conspiracy theory, it seems doubtful that this paper's claims would replicate in the real world if applied more fairly. Given that they were fantastically lazy (not validating anything by hand, 100% blind trust in the AI), it may not even replicate within the narrow academic context either.