21–30 of 335 posts
Yeah, all because people wanted to scream "bias." Sadly the community here seemed apt to agree with it, but I definitely have my opinions on that. Quoted from a previous thread: >Did the standard for their sources remain relatively constant regardless of the material being discussed? There isn't a clear answer here, but that doesn't make it defacto censorship of one set of particular political opinions. The sources t…
You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…
I don't. It's fundamentally a question about when sex cells become a person, and if rights accumulate sequentially or instantaneously.
There are lots of lines one can reasonably draw, e.g. independent viability (downside: disenfranchises premature babies), consciousness (no way to measure it), neural activity (how much?), heartbeat (why not if the tongue's wiggling?), conception, birth, et cetera.
Breaking down problems is one way to help dis-engage tribal instincts.
You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…
How do you prove that you believe something?
You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…
I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that anyone on the internet is an actual human being. Especially so if this entity decides what I'm reading and why. I want to see the source to ranking algorithms, input sources and moderation activity. Not that I don't trust the Zuck.
You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…
Should they also seek to hire neo-nazis to get the nazi viewpoint as well?
Worth a read IMO: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…
Should they also seek to hire neo-nazis to get the nazi viewpoint as well?