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

Check your fucking sources, people

brodzinski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#21

Post by throw310822 »

flail wrote: post #9
wing-_-nuts wrote: post #2

Ironically, 'source checking' is something AI is quite good at.

There's nuance to that. An LLM is quite capable of suggesting relevant reading, given the context. Especially when the context is broad enough that there's enough training data. "Find me research on code reviews, their size, and quality" would give you more than enough reading. Yet, if you start with a claim, like "Longer PRs mean worse defect detection," the relevant data points fall to few enough for AI to start ha…

Checking is different from finding, though. Source checking means just "verify that this information is actually present in that document". Much harder to hallucinate in this case.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#22

Post by wat10000 »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #8

It's amazing that people think Snopes or other "fact-checkers" are reliable sources of information and represent ultimate truth, as if they're immune to bias and don't receive funding from people / organizations with their own agendas.

They are generally quite good, and they provide ample background info for you to replicate (or repudiate) their findings on your own if you're so inclined.

What's amazing is that people think Snopes or other fact-checkers are automatically wrong. I assume this comes from people who make a habit of believing bullshit and can't handle being corrected.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#24

Post by ubertaco »

6stringmerc wrote: post #3

Also relevant: the derision and mockery directed at JD Vance as a “couch fucker” even used by John Oliver. I read “Hillbilly Elegy” and wondered why it wasn’t in there. Snopes cleared it up in a matter of minutes. Why he hasn’t sued people into oblivion is his prerogative, but it’s a fascinating case study that we are, indeed, living in a Post-Truth environment.

You're getting downvotes because the target of this particular lie was a known liar, so people probably feel like it's some sort of poetic justice (or they know it's just in-kind retaliation and are cathartically satisfied by it).

I don't think the right answer to widespread disinformation campaigns is retaliatory disinformation campaigns (even if they're couched – pun not intended – in a just-barely-thin-enough veil of "wink wink we know this is a joke").

The right answer is to create systems and measures that actually limit disinformation.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#25

Post by tinfoilhatter »

ubertaco wrote: post #17
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #8

It's amazing that people think Snopes or other "fact-checkers" are reliable sources of information and represent ultimate truth, as if they're immune to bias and don't receive funding from people / organizations with their own agendas.

Snopes (like anywhere) is only as reliable as its track record of collecting firsthand sources and accurately reporting on their contents. Which is to say: pretty good so far, in their case. For the future? Who knows. But they've done well up to now, at least.

Actually no, their track record is not great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes#2010s

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#26

Post by SllX »

> Not Sweden, but one Swedish startup.

Just as an aside jumping off this sentence from the article, I am far less tolerant of the practice of naming countries of origin or general locales rather than specific organizations in headlines and stories.

Name the organization, and if you want to in the body, name where they’re from/located/operating as it pertains to the organization. For that matter, if you can offer information on the specific locale (Sweden is a big place after all), you should also do that unless it really is something more national/international.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#27

Post by tinfoilhatter »

wat10000 wrote: post #22
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #8

It's amazing that people think Snopes or other "fact-checkers" are reliable sources of information and represent ultimate truth, as if they're immune to bias and don't receive funding from people / organizations with their own agendas.

They are generally quite good, and they provide ample background info for you to replicate (or repudiate) their findings on your own if you're so inclined. What's amazing is that people think Snopes or other fact-checkers are automatically wrong. I assume this comes from people who make a habit of believing bullshit and can't handle being corrected.

When there is no independent media, it's not difficult to find sources that back up the lies that Snopes and other fact-checkers peddle.

https://fair.org/home/the-digital-media-oligarchy-who-owns-o...

https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#28

Post by vslira »

People like to blame social media for this kind of bullshit, but social media is just the vector.

Just this week I read a "study" because someone claimed on social media that it was made by (Public, famous) Unis A, B and C and reported as an effect an increase in 30% of revenue for the companies that participated in the experiment.

The "study" was commissioned by an interest group (bad sign). It was conducted by people associated with said unis (I didn't check their credentials), and it did report in its headline the 30% revenue increase.

Said study was about an experiment that ran for a few months. Within these months, the revenue was flat (which could be considered good enough for the cause). The 30% was the revenue of this period against the same period the previous year. So somehow the experiment affected the companies retroactively! Not to mention that the researchers were able to find a group of companies that were, on average, growing 30% YoY. Surprising indeed.

So even if you check your sources, it may still be bullshit science or bullshit reporting from well-credentialed sources.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#30

Post by princevegeta89 »

RajT88 wrote: post #16

Facebook, ever the wasteland of bullshit and scams, has gotten even more bullshit and scammy in the AI era. I have found the single best way to avoid being pissed off by this shit is to just avoid Facebook. It dramatically cuts down on the amount I am exposed to. I also run with adblockers, and consume news via brutalist.report, which also helps. (I avoid the Fox News section at the bottom)

Not just Facebook, but also make sure to avoid TikTok, Instagram and YouTube, along with YouTube Shorts. Many of them are just nothing but fake AI content, and these days people are using AI to create fake profiles of good-looking, cute girls doing impossible things or actually showing off their bodies, and so on. At least 50% of what you see on your feed should be considered AI-generated content.

I would say save your time and energy, and invest that into something else - forget all this social media.

Post reply on HN