Live data from Hacker News

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

technologyreview.com

11–20 of 230 posts

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#11

That's the ticket. Promote "science" by relentlessly repeating the same thing over and over again and refusing to engage in a meaningful argument.

You're being snide, I suspect, but that's a time-tested and well-proven method of reaching the segment of the population that is currently being inundated with anti-science messages. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to an…

By relying on such tactics you are abandoning science. You are saying essentially "who cares that these techniques can be used to get people to believe anything, what matters is that we are using them to promote The TRUTH(TM)". And every religion in history has believed exactly the same thing.

I don't want science to die, I don't want it to be replaced with some new ideology or religion which can trace its roots to some sciency origin.

Perhaps you can claim that in the short run you've improved things, but in the long run you've drowned out the vital dialog that keeps the process of science alive, you've killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Meanwhile, someone else figures out how to shout even louder and more convincingly than you and we're back to square one, or the dark ages.

People aren't accepting what you believe to be scientifically provable facts? Argue more persuasively, provide better evidence. Don't just shout louder.

P.S. Yeah, it's a tough and frustrating process. Nobody said it'd be easy. It took millenia for human civilization to pull itself out of the morass of uncritical and superstitious thought. People, many people, suffered and died for that achievement, and the results have been spectacular so far. Giving up on science just because convincing other people of something is a frustrating and difficult process is the height of immaturity.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#13

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Some programmer assumes that he is right and others are wrong, so he writes a bot to chase down people he might disagree with and bombard them with one-liners. And Technology Review thinks this is behavior worth promoting? I suspect the reason is that they agree with the programmer. Try it out for a bit with the roles reversed. Doesn't feel quite the same, huh? ADD: The assu…

I am as skeptical of the details of man-made global warming as anyone, but people who argue on twitter, for God's sake, are at the level of a chat-bot and it's probably for the best.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#14
It looks like it's having a tough time with a lot of misfires (probably due to sarcasm according to the article), at least from a cursory glance at the bot's twitter feed (http://twitter.com/AI_AGW) that currently has a lot of apologies.

It's a neat idea though.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#15

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Some programmer assumes that he is right and others are wrong, so he writes a bot to chase down people he might disagree with and bombard them with one-liners. And Technology Review thinks this is behavior worth promoting? I suspect the reason is that they agree with the programmer. Try it out for a bit with the roles reversed. Doesn't feel quite the same, huh? ADD: The assu…

Nit: he's not really "chasing them down", he's sending @replies to their public messages. I get the feeling those sending messages into the ether about global warming are looking for an argument.

But your point is well taken. I would find this incredibly annoying if I didn't agree with his viewpoint.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#16

It looks like it's having a tough time with a lot of misfires (probably due to sarcasm according to the article), at least from a cursory glance at the bot's twitter feed ( http://twitter.com/AI_AGW ) that currently has a lot of apologies. It's a neat idea though.

It just appears that way because he processes the apologies in bulk when he has time.

Apparently he recently worked through a little backlog of apologies, but if you scroll down you'll a longer streak of non-apologies.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#17
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew I'd get downvoted for stating the fact... The problem with that Twitter bot is that which ever side it promoted, it's still stating "facts" without citation (as I have done). That's the problem with Twitter: it's useless as a platform for DISCUSSION. The bot author is a spambot, not a chatbot, and is another reason to stay away from that website.

I glanced over the bot's Twitter stream and it appeared that every response it sent out included a headline/quote and a link. None of the tweets were simply assertions without a link to research or an article to back them up.

Apologies, I thought the text displayed was all the twitter feed was sending.

Twitter still sucks, though.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being snide, I suspect, but that's a time-tested and well-proven method of reaching the segment of the population that is currently being inundated with anti-science messages. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to an…

By relying on such tactics you are abandoning science. You are saying essentially "who cares that these techniques can be used to get people to believe anything , what matters is that we are using them to promote The TRUTH(TM)". And every religion in history has believed exactly the same thing. I don't want science to die, I don't want it to be replaced with some new ideology or religion which can trace its roots to…

How about if the message promoted (i.e. THE TRUTH(TM)) is that that the scientific method works and that we should place our 'faith' in it? ;-)

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being snide, I suspect, but that's a time-tested and well-proven method of reaching the segment of the population that is currently being inundated with anti-science messages. Many, many people believe what they hear first and what gets shouted loudest. Not liking that fact, and therefore refusing to engage in those tactics, doesn't make it any less true; it simply cedes a large segment of the population to an…

By relying on such tactics you are abandoning science. You are saying essentially "who cares that these techniques can be used to get people to believe anything , what matters is that we are using them to promote The TRUTH(TM)". And every religion in history has believed exactly the same thing. I don't want science to die, I don't want it to be replaced with some new ideology or religion which can trace its roots to…

> By relying on such tactics you are abandoning science.

I don't think this is true. Science is a means of building knowledge via testable predictions. It's not a promotional tool.

It's unrealistic to expect that effective techniques for performing science will be at all effective for promoting science; in fact, we have ample evidence that trying to promote science via reasoned engagement doesn't work very well. Anti-scientific proponents of vaccine-avoidance or evolution-denial continue to gain the mindshare of a significant and powerful segment of the voting population that "better evidence" has been unable to sway.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#20

That's the ticket. Promote "science" by relentlessly repeating the same thing over and over again and refusing to engage in a meaningful argument.

If someone comes up to me and informs me that "XYZ is wrong!", and I refer him to several books on the subject, how am I being anti-science?

I'm reminded of a friend's story back in undergrad. His lab TA told everyone "See that stuffed bear of there? That's Mr. Cuddles. If you have a question, ask Mr. Cuddles first. Then if he can't help you, ask a real TA."

What the AI_bot is dealing with is automatic handling of a large number of pre-canned, pre-debunked arguments, which appropriate reply _is_ "This has been debated before, check it out." Understanding other people's arguments is also part of the scientific process. Furthermore, the author of the bot is reviewing the activity, to ensure that arguments are not being inappropriately applied.

Post reply on HN