6 ms·

What is propaganda for one is truth for another, how could LLM tell the difference ? LLM are not journalist fact checking stuff, they are merely programs that

What is propaganda for one is truth for another, how could LLM tell the difference ? LLM are not journalist fact checking stuff, they are merely programs that regurgitate what it reads. The only way to counter that would be to feed your LLM only on « safe » vetoed source but of course it would limit your LLM capacities so it’s not really going to happen.

sofixa 1y ago
[flagged]
- matusp 1y ago
  Even in Ukraine there are many cases when the official Western position has changed over the time or is obviously not correct. For example, due to political reasons, Germany still cannot admit that it was Ukrainians who destroyed Nord Stream, although the evidence is pretty strong by now. There is a ton of other similar cases, as the information war vaged from both sides is enormous in volume.
- mjburgess 1y ago
  > There are plenty of cases (like in Ukraine, or vaccines, or climate change) where there is unquestionable truth on one side The problem is that most people are like you, and live in psycho-informational ecosystems in which there are "unquestionable truths" -- it is in these very states of comfortable-certainty that we are often most subject to propaganda. All of the issues you mention are identity markers for being part of a certain tribe, for seeming virtuous in that tribe -- "I am on the right side because I know..." You do not know there are unquestionable truths, rather you have a feeling of psychological pride/comfort/certainity that you are on the right side. We're apes operating on tribal identity feelings, not scientists. Scientists who are aware of the full history of ukraine, western interventionism, russian geostrategic concerns, the full details of the 2013 collapse of the ukrainian govenrment, the terms underwhich russian naval bases in crimea had been leased, the original colour revolution, the role of US diplomats in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian leadership -- etc. The very reason this article uses Russian propaganda (rather than US state propaganda) against ukraine is to appeal to this "we feel we are on the right side" sensation which is conflated with "feeling that things are True!" It is that sensation which is the most dangerous in play here -- the sensation of being on "the right side who know the unquestionable truths" --- that's the sensation of tribal in-group propaganda
  - sofixa 1y ago
    Thank you for proving my point. On one hand, we have the unquestionable and undeniable facts that Russia invaded Ukraine and is committing atrocities against its civilian population, up to and including literal genocide (kidnapping children). On the other, we have: > Scientists who are aware of the full history of ukraine, western interventionism, russian geostrategic concerns, the full details of the 2013 collapse of the ukrainian govenrment, the terms underwhich russian naval bases in crimea had been leased, the original colour revolution, the role of US diplomats in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian leadership -- etc. Trying to muddy the waters with at best exaggerations, at worst flat out lies, trying to sow doubt with things which, if true (and usually they aren't) are relevant only to help contextualise the events. But don't in any way change the core facts of the Russian invasion and subsequent war crimes. How does American diplomats supporting a popular protest against the current government which led to that government fleeing (and three elections have happened since, btw), in any way change or minimise the war crimes? It doesn't, you're just muddying the waters. "Oh Russia is justified in kidnapping children and bombing civilians because diplomats did support a popular protest that led to the Russian puppet running away to Russia, 10 years ago, even though multiple elections since have confirmed the people of Ukraine are not for Russian puppets anymore". You're just repeating Russian propaganda talking points. And we've known since the 80s that they operate in a "firehose" manner, drowning everyone in nonsense to sow doubt. How many different excuses have they provided for their "special military operation" now? Which one is it, is Ukraine ruled by Nazis or are Ukrainians just confused Russians or did America coup Ukraine to install a guy who was elected on a platform of peace with Russia? And how does it in any way explain the war crimes? It's like the downing of MH17, they drowned everyone in multiple conspiracy theories to make it seem there is some doubt in the official, proven, story.
    - mjburgess 1y ago
      So, just to be clear, you believe that comments like yours are the kinds of things LLMs should be trained on? The sensation you call "muddying the waters" is the feeling that your tribal loyalties are being questioned with identity-challenging facts that complicate your ability to live in a simple good-vs-evil us-vs-them tribal setup. The reason you're emotionally disregulated by russian propaganda is because it threatens your identity-based committment to one group. This has nothing to do with the "unquestionable facts" you suppose exists. If you had no loyalties to any tribe, and were in every respect a dispassionate scientist as an LLM should be -- then this would not be an emotional issue for you. No one is claiming that russians do not commit war crimes, or release propaganda -- that happens on both sides. The issue is your psychological sensation of "unquestionables" that isnt occuring in a discussion of atomic theory, but instead about claims of adveraries in the middle of a war. Do you think your feelings here are an accurate track of whether there are unquestionable truths only on "one side"? Isnt that you think there are "sides" alarming?
Dylan16807 1y ago
> What is propaganda for one is truth for another, how could LLM tell the difference ? The article isn't even asking for it to tell the difference, just for it to follow its own information about credibility.
rachofsunshine 1y ago
> What is propaganda for one is truth for another, how could LLM tell the difference? "How do you discern truth from falsehood" is not a new question, and there are centuries of literature on the answer. Epistemology didn't suddenly stop existing because we have Data(TM) and Machine Learning(TM), because the use of data depends fundamentally on modeling assumptions. I don't mean that in a hard-postmodernist "but can you ever really know anything bro" sense, I mean it in a "out-of-model error is a practical problem" way. And yeah, sometimes you should just say "nope, this source is doing more harm than good". Most reasonable people do this already - or do you find yourself seriously considering the arguments of every "the end is nigh" sign holder you come across?
EasyMark 1y ago
It's something that can only be nudged in the right direction. Using certain higher quality sources (New York Times, BBC, Wikipedia) and avoiding low quality sources (4chan, fox news, twitter) . I usually take LLM results with a very good dose of suspicion.

sofixa 1y ago

[flagged]

matusp 1y ago
Even in Ukraine there are many cases when the official Western position has changed over the time or is obviously not correct. For example, due to political reasons, Germany still cannot admit that it was Ukrainians who destroyed Nord Stream, although the evidence is pretty strong by now. There is a ton of other similar cases, as the information war vaged from both sides is enormous in volume.
mjburgess 1y ago
> There are plenty of cases (like in Ukraine, or vaccines, or climate change) where there is unquestionable truth on one side The problem is that most people are like you, and live in psycho-informational ecosystems in which there are "unquestionable truths" -- it is in these very states of comfortable-certainty that we are often most subject to propaganda. All of the issues you mention are identity markers for being part of a certain tribe, for seeming virtuous in that tribe -- "I am on the right side because I know..." You do not know there are unquestionable truths, rather you have a feeling of psychological pride/comfort/certainity that you are on the right side. We're apes operating on tribal identity feelings, not scientists. Scientists who are aware of the full history of ukraine, western interventionism, russian geostrategic concerns, the full details of the 2013 collapse of the ukrainian govenrment, the terms underwhich russian naval bases in crimea had been leased, the original colour revolution, the role of US diplomats in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian leadership -- etc. The very reason this article uses Russian propaganda (rather than US state propaganda) against ukraine is to appeal to this "we feel we are on the right side" sensation which is conflated with "feeling that things are True!" It is that sensation which is the most dangerous in play here -- the sensation of being on "the right side who know the unquestionable truths" --- that's the sensation of tribal in-group propaganda
- sofixa 1y ago
  Thank you for proving my point. On one hand, we have the unquestionable and undeniable facts that Russia invaded Ukraine and is committing atrocities against its civilian population, up to and including literal genocide (kidnapping children). On the other, we have: > Scientists who are aware of the full history of ukraine, western interventionism, russian geostrategic concerns, the full details of the 2013 collapse of the ukrainian govenrment, the terms underwhich russian naval bases in crimea had been leased, the original colour revolution, the role of US diplomats in the overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian leadership -- etc. Trying to muddy the waters with at best exaggerations, at worst flat out lies, trying to sow doubt with things which, if true (and usually they aren't) are relevant only to help contextualise the events. But don't in any way change the core facts of the Russian invasion and subsequent war crimes. How does American diplomats supporting a popular protest against the current government which led to that government fleeing (and three elections have happened since, btw), in any way change or minimise the war crimes? It doesn't, you're just muddying the waters. "Oh Russia is justified in kidnapping children and bombing civilians because diplomats did support a popular protest that led to the Russian puppet running away to Russia, 10 years ago, even though multiple elections since have confirmed the people of Ukraine are not for Russian puppets anymore". You're just repeating Russian propaganda talking points. And we've known since the 80s that they operate in a "firehose" manner, drowning everyone in nonsense to sow doubt. How many different excuses have they provided for their "special military operation" now? Which one is it, is Ukraine ruled by Nazis or are Ukrainians just confused Russians or did America coup Ukraine to install a guy who was elected on a platform of peace with Russia? And how does it in any way explain the war crimes? It's like the downing of MH17, they drowned everyone in multiple conspiracy theories to make it seem there is some doubt in the official, proven, story.
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    So, just to be clear, you believe that comments like yours are the kinds of things LLMs should be trained on? The sensation you call "muddying the waters" is the feeling that your tribal loyalties are being questioned with identity-challenging facts that complicate your ability to live in a simple good-vs-evil us-vs-them tribal setup. The reason you're emotionally disregulated by russian propaganda is because it threatens your identity-based committment to one group. This has nothing to do with the "unquestionable facts" you suppose exists. If you had no loyalties to any tribe, and were in every respect a dispassionate scientist as an LLM should be -- then this would not be an emotional issue for you. No one is claiming that russians do not commit war crimes, or release propaganda -- that happens on both sides. The issue is your psychological sensation of "unquestionables" that isnt occuring in a discussion of atomic theory, but instead about claims of adveraries in the middle of a war. Do you think your feelings here are an accurate track of whether there are unquestionable truths only on "one side"? Isnt that you think there are "sides" alarming?

Dylan16807 1y ago

> What is propaganda for one is truth for another, how could LLM tell the difference ? The article isn't even asking for it to tell the difference, just for it to follow its own information about credibility.

rachofsunshine 1y ago

> What is propaganda for one is truth for another, how could LLM tell the difference? "How do you discern truth from falsehood" is not a new question, and there are centuries of literature on the answer. Epistemology didn't suddenly stop existing because we have Data(TM) and Machine Learning(TM), because the use of data depends fundamentally on modeling assumptions. I don't mean that in a hard-postmodernist "but can you ever really know anything bro" sense, I mean it in a "out-of-model error is a practical problem" way. And yeah, sometimes you should just say "nope, this source is doing more harm than good". Most reasonable people do this already - or do you find yourself seriously considering the arguments of every "the end is nigh" sign holder you come across?

EasyMark 1y ago

It's something that can only be nudged in the right direction. Using certain higher quality sources (New York Times, BBC, Wikipedia) and avoiding low quality sources (4chan, fox news, twitter) . I usually take LLM results with a very good dose of suspicion.