←back to thread

707 points patd | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
itchyjunk ◴[] No.23323027[source]
Hm, is fact checking solved problem? I remember someone here had their game flagged just because it referenced SARS-CoV-2. I hear almost daily horror stories of youtube algo's screwing up content creator. As a human, I still struggle a lot to read a paper and figure out what I just read. On top of that, things like the GPT2 from OpenAI might generate very human like comment.

Is there no way to consider social media as unreliable overall and not bother fact checking anything there? All this tech is relatively new but maybe we should think in longer time scale. Wikipedia is still not used as a source in school work because that's the direction educational institution moved. If we could give a status that nothing on social media is too be taken seriously, maybe it's a better approach.

Let me end this on a muddier concept. I thought masks was a good idea from the get go but there was an opposing view that existed at some point about this even from "authoritative" sources. In that case, do we just appeal to authority? Ask some oracle what "fact" is and shun every other point of view?

replies(20): >>23323084 #>>23323090 #>>23323093 #>>23323119 #>>23323156 #>>23323248 #>>23323292 #>>23323293 #>>23323501 #>>23323612 #>>23323678 #>>23324444 #>>23326834 #>>23327250 #>>23327934 #>>23328595 #>>23330609 #>>23330880 #>>23331904 #>>23333292 #
Loughla ◴[] No.23323293[source]
> Ask some oracle what "fact" is and shun every other point of view?

This statement concerns me, greatly. Its implication is that facts are merely point of view statements. That is just, well, it's just wrong.

Facts are facts. The truth is the truth. They don't care what your beliefs are. If it is empirically true, then it is true.

Why and when did it become okay to hand-wave and dismiss anything you didn't believe in, personally, just because you don't believe in it? What is this world?

replies(8): >>23323435 #>>23323453 #>>23323657 #>>23324053 #>>23326977 #>>23328583 #>>23328679 #>>23330674 #
2019-nCoV ◴[] No.23323453[source]
How can a statement about the future be empirically wrong?
replies(5): >>23323756 #>>23323767 #>>23323788 #>>23323791 #>>23327784 #
x86_64Ubuntu ◴[] No.23323788[source]
So if the president says "The sun won't rise tomorrow", we can't reject that statement out of hand?
replies(1): >>23323900 #
2019-nCoV ◴[] No.23323900[source]
You'd be wise too, but you wouldn't be rejecting it empirically.
replies(1): >>23326476 #
1. nkozyra ◴[] No.23326476{3}[source]
"Empirical" does not mean exclusively present observation. It includes reacting to observed patterns a priori, for example.
replies(1): >>23327524 #
2. jmoss20 ◴[] No.23327524[source]
...observed patterns a priori?
replies(1): >>23328974 #
3. nkozyra ◴[] No.23328974[source]
As in a priori observations can instruct an empirical conclusion.
replies(1): >>23330201 #
4. 2019-nCoV ◴[] No.23330201{3}[source]
Only ex post...