Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Let me tell you about my mother.
Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
41–50 of 230 posts
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've been fascinated with the idea of an ocean arcology being built in shallow waters and instead of starting 'ground' up, but simply start construction of several concrete boat foundations. When positioned, simply continue constructing. As the boat gets taller, it will displace to a greater depth until it eventually hits the ocean floor.
It would be a very modular way to construct an ocean city. Get them within 500m of each other and you'll be breaking no new ground to bridge the two modules. Get them within 200m and you've hit mundane in connecting them. What's more interesting is if you could use the span distances as agricultural land and keep the human sectors within the module footprint.
Considering the Petronius platform reaches about 530m underwater to a stable foundation and Burj Khalifa reaches 828m above ground, and the longest bridge is 552m. We could make a monstrous city without breaking any new ground.
Who cares if the ocean is rising if your city is built astride it?
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#43It's disturbing that (among other things) this programmer has so confidently separated humanity into "crowd"s, and feels free to deride and explain his superiority to at least two of these crowds in his quotes. I'm surprised that this degree of stereotyping and subsequent mockery was published by TR with no trace of criticism or meaningful commentary.
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#44> 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,…
No, no, no. #3 is supposed to be "Profit!", and not an explanation of how you profit!
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#45Let 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 suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock. At least 95% of the argument with deniers is basically…
"I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock."
All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified. It's just as bad (can you show me proof that's not based on this falsified data?).
There is a lot of money in global warming. Al gore is not only invested in the carbon credit industry, but he is trying to get the US government to force businesses to purchase these carbon credits (the profits from these will go directly into his pocket). Nobody on the left seems to care about how unethical this is.
"Nigel's just automating away the drudgery."
No, Nigel doesn't actually want to defend his point. He would rather make fun of the "crackpots" because he arrogantly believes that he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
By "unable to sway" you mean "unable to sway everyone without any effort and with almost no delay".
How many people believed in evolution in 1500? How many people believed the Sun was powered by nuclear fusion in 1900? It's possible to convince people of the value of scientific inquiry and the truth of the results of scientific research, but sometimes it takes a lot more time and effort than anyone would wish.
On the plus side, we have it a lot easier than Galileo did. Our lives aren't in immediate danger merely because we challenge the dogma of powerful institutions.
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's using known tested methods for getting people to listen to points of view that they don't agree with. That's psychology. He's also using some set of content matching algorithms, and may introduce other deeper learning algorithms. That's computer science. Seems like science to me :P
Yes, you can use science to destroy science, why shouldn't that be so? What's your point?
My point was that he's using psychology, computer science, and climate science to battle global warming denialists. That is actually in support of Science. That was my point, which opposes your seeming claim that his software wasn't using science (where in fact, it does).
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#48Earlier 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…
The subject under discussion is not science, but who to trust on scientific issues that affect politics. People act out this argument dramatically by repeating the arguments of the people they think should be trusted. This is not a good thing -- as usual, when people aren't explicitly talking about what they're really arguing over, the debate goes nowhere fast -- but at least you can comfort yourself with the thought that the public discussion about global warming has nothing to do with the process and progress of science.
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#49Let 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…
You're missing the point.
It's not about whether or not the facts he's spamming people with are right or wrong, it's the fact that he's doing it in the first place.
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock. At least 95% of the argument with deniers is basically…
"I suspect that part of the problem is that, at least with climate deniers, is that there's no real meat to their arguments. I know a few, and most of their arguments boil down to hearsay or "denier blog X says so, and who trusts Obama/the UN world government anyway". If they provided a link to something supporting their position I'd probably pass out from shock." All of the global warming data is based on informatio…
All of the global warming data is based on information that has been falsified.
Excuse me?