Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 230 posts

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#31

Post by kiba »

electromagnetic wrote: post #21
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it's like arguing on a crowded bus. Everyone hears you, nobody cares and they either want you put in your place or told to STFU. I'm more dubious of the proposed solutions to global warming than anything as it looks highly like a band-aid infused with arsenic to me. Sure it'll kill the infection, but it could well kill you too. Go nuclear, it's the lesser of the evils. Existing infrastructure can be cannibalized…

How about building partially underwater coastline? Though, it could be an issue if there is a crack in the window.

Instead of trying to stop global warming, maybe we should try living with it.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#32

Post by olefoo »

> In a way, what Leck has created is a pro-active search engine: it answers twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance.

On the one hand the idea of a reverse search engine is somewhat appealing, on the other hand; it's Clippy for the internet.

""" I see you're trying to deny global warming. Would you like to:

  1. research the available facts and science?

  2. Have an authority figure you trust tell you, you're wrong?

  3. Meet other like-minded singles?
"""

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#33

Post by zeraholladay »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

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 might be more willing to argue with a bot than some people, since the bot ain't going to track me down an shoot me.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#34

Post by stoney »

GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #12

Perhaps the "proponents of anti-science nonsense" are also secret chatbots and the robots have hijacked both sides of the discussion.

I was wondering about that too - would the two opposing bots slug it out until the end of time (or the end of Twitter at least)?

It really is bizarre to think of two machines sat arguing with each other.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#35

Post by FlemishBeeCycle »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

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 imagine it has to do with political correctness, but it seems there is an undercurrent on HN of treating all opinions as equally valid?

Even if both sides of the argument are incorrect, if the second opinion was formed through rigorous scientific investigation and represents and the best understanding that we currently have, why should we treat it equally with the opinion that was not developed through any sort of discourse and research?*

* Assuming that methodology described in the article is sound, "...searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments ..."

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#36

Post by JabavuAdams »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

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…

Er, you didn't understand it correctly.

The bot provides citations.

Suppose that human-caused global warming is false. It would still be possible (and common) to make erroneous arguments about how humans aren't causing global warming.

Skepticism is great, but most people's pro-X or anti-X nonsense isn't thoughtful skepticism. It's noise.

This is a way of injecting signal back into the noise.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#37

Post by lmz »

gojomo wrote: post #29
GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #12

Perhaps the "proponents of anti-science nonsense" are also secret chatbots and the robots have hijacked both sides of the discussion.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine spam bots filling the net with appealing nonsense -- forever.

Isn't this the case in Neal Stephenson's Anathem where truth on the net is hard to come by because programs keep pumping out plausible nonsense?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#38

Post by megablast »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

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 happen to believe the Global warming and pollution is such an important issue, it forgives the pollution of twitter feeds with unimportant messages, which lets be honest, is a drop in the ocean.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#39

Post by zeraholladay »

gojomo wrote: post #29
GiraffeNecktie wrote: post #12

Perhaps the "proponents of anti-science nonsense" are also secret chatbots and the robots have hijacked both sides of the discussion.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine spam bots filling the net with appealing nonsense -- forever.

Makes me suspicious if anyone on the net would pass the Voigt-Kampff test.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#40

Post by JabavuAdams »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #11
msbarnett wrote: post #4

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…

And this is why the ignorant mob always wins, in the end.

People who make arguments that can be refuted in 5 mins are not contributing to "vital dialogue". They're noise-makers.

People who won't change their opinions when confronted with evidence aren't playing the same game you're playing.

Post reply on HN