Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news • Hacker News Board

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#51

Post by BFatts » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

kartan wrote: post #20

rightos wrote: post #3

I really don't like the "fact checks" being done by news sites these days - that's your responsibility as a reader, tech can't do it for you. Even more reputable sites like Snopes tend to draw absolutist conclusions about things which I find are certainly not absolute.

> that's your responsibility as a reader I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA? How do I know that a result of a clinical test is reliable? Do I check it on another on-line source? Do I spend millions on R&D and do my own analysis? Or just few thousands going to Las Vegas and gathering my own data? Or do I need to wait for a Newspaper that actually has fact-checking? > Even m…

Look for correlations that come from disparate sources. That's how I verify stuff that happens in Sweden.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#52

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:26 PM UTC

pilif wrote: post #25

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted. It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserab…

> This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted.

Indeed. If we do end up with some sort of "malicious AI apocalypse", then it will be because some humans wanted it to happen.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#53

Post by pwinnski » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:26 PM UTC

rightos wrote: post #46

jhayward wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't disagree with you more. To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless. This is exactly what has lead to the flood of conspiracy theories, malicious mis-statements, and general degradation of the media commons that has put us in our present state. I do not have the infinite amount of time necessary to fact check the flood of bullshit in social media, much less deliberate BS…

> To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless. That's not at all what I'm saying - absolutely, look at the opinions of experts, just don't expect a news service to present all the ideal experts to you in one place. Go out and seek those experts on your own and verify who you think is credible and where their existing biases are.

And how do you determine who are the experts? There are many trolls actively seeking to represent themselves as such, some more credibly than others. Once you push past those--if you can, since they grow like Topsy--then you get the actual experts with their own biases.

This very quickly becomes more than a full-time job, much more even than a single full-time person can handle. Asking every person interested in world events to spend more than eight hours a day determining the veracity of everything they read, well, it's not a reasonably proposition.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#54

Post by rightos » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:27 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #49

kartan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's your responsibility as a reader I live in Sweden. How do I fact check what happens in a neighborhood in the USA? How do I know that a result of a clinical test is reliable? Do I check it on another on-line source? Do I spend millions on R&D and do my own analysis? Or just few thousands going to Las Vegas and gathering my own data? Or do I need to wait for a Newspaper that actually has fact-checking? > Even m…

Erhm, you click on the link? Every page on 4chan contains the following disclaimer at the top: "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact". If you want real fake news, Google any semi-obscure health issue. You'll be lucky to find one or two .gov's among sketchy sites peddling homeopoathic cures.

> "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact".

I believe that's only on /b/.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#55

Post by ng12 » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:27 PM UTC

This is a problem as old as time. Just because you can find the Enquirer on the same rack as the New York Times doesn't mean they're equally valid news sources. Just read the material and decide for yourself. It's especially easy for sites like 4chan which publicly avow that all posts are "artistic works of fiction and falsehood".

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#56

Post by rightos » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #53

rightos wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To make this statement is akin to saying that the opinion of experts is useless. That's not at all what I'm saying - absolutely, look at the opinions of experts, just don't expect a news service to present all the ideal experts to you in one place. Go out and seek those experts on your own and verify who you think is credible and where their existing biases are.

And how do you determine who are the experts? There are many trolls actively seeking to represent themselves as such, some more credibly than others. Once you push past those--if you can, since they grow like Topsy--then you get the actual experts with their own biases. This very quickly becomes more than a full-time job, much more even than a single full-time person can handle. Asking every person interested in worl…

It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources. Established names, links to well-known institutions, past history, etc.

If you expect some single organization or worse, crappy AI to put together the perfect list of experts for you, I'd be deeply concerned about your susceptibility to this kind of thing in general.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#57

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

rightos wrote: post #56

pwinnski wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you determine who are the experts? There are many trolls actively seeking to represent themselves as such, some more credibly than others. Once you push past those--if you can, since they grow like Topsy--then you get the actual experts with their own biases. This very quickly becomes more than a full-time job, much more even than a single full-time person can handle. Asking every person interested in worl…

It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources. Established names, links to well-known institutions, past history, etc. If you expect some single organization or worse, crappy AI to put together the perfect list of experts for you, I'd be deeply concerned about your susceptibility to this kind of thing in general.

> It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources

You simply cannot take this position in the comments section about a story in which Google very, very specifically fails quite badly to represent factual information.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#58

Post by trgv » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

pilif wrote: post #25

>We are working to fix the issue that allowed this to happen This is not some issue that you can fix. This is not some color being off, or some chat message appearing out of order. This is about AI in its continued infancy that’s now being actively and maliciously targeted. It’s also about a huge responsibility of the worlds two greatest media outlets that both think they can have machines do a humans job and miserab…

I think you're way off base here.

Based on the story linked, this event was the result of a situation occurring that google engineers did not anticipate. It's just an edge case that was not handled properly.

There's nothing "AI specific" about that. Clearly google is going to continue using algorithms to rank pages, and clearly this will sometimes return bad results.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#59

Post by rightos » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:32 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #57

rightos wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources. Established names, links to well-known institutions, past history, etc. If you expect some single organization or worse, crappy AI to put together the perfect list of experts for you, I'd be deeply concerned about your susceptibility to this kind of thing in general.

> It's really not that hard to Google something and find reputable sources You simply cannot take this position in the comments section about a story in which Google very, very specifically fails quite badly to represent factual information.

This article is about their news aggregator failing to represent a fact check correctly, not about their search engine failing to deliver a wide variety of sources with various levels of reputability. Which it does do quite reliably. Their fact checking AI on the other hand... not so reliable clearly.

Re: Google admits citing 4chan to spread fake Vegas shooter news

#60

Post by bitL » Thu, Oct 05, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

Ultimately, the issue is whether we allow freedom of speech or not (or suppressing it severely). Tech is becoming political now, it's going to end up regulated and meaningful advancements will be rare, as they will risk "rocking the boat". That is going to be the most likely result when all major tech companies bow down to "filtering", "censoring", "suppressing" unpopular opinion. Automation would in infinite limit allow perfect control; now the question is are we going to build a society for automatons, i.e. allow only predefined human interactions, or for actual humans? Freedom always brings horrible things with it, but also greatness not possible in restrictive societies.