471–480 of 1001 posts
Despite the efforts, I have seen an increase in anti-zionist sentiment on the internet. Most notable on the right from people like Tucker Carlson en Candace Owens. People are tired of fighting another Middle-Eastern war for Israel.
I suspect that this kind of tactic is going to be everywhere in a year or so. Entire fake personalities and organization websites on the Internet created just to push a narrative or to advertise a product, which completely drown out real information. At some point they may be indistinguishable from human-produced work, so the only way to verify if a site is someone's genuine opinion or AI-generated narrative is throu…
I'm kind of hopeful AI some wikipedia-inspired AI "oracle" will happen in the future. Why not use some central AI to separate fact from fiction (faster than trolls and griefers can come to muddy the debate).
There are many studies, but each can be wrong and they can collectively show a bias. Even things of which are the most non-political of facts can have very strong biases. Look at the Millikan measurement of the electron and how in created confirmation bias and an anchoring effect on some property that has absolutely no real world significance to the things people are tribalistic about (aka, no political relevance). Now imagine the same applied to fields like economics or psychology which do have massive legal/political implications.
For a different example, ask the question if X committed crime Y. There are cases where they weren't found guilty but it is reasonable to assume they did. But being found guilty doesn't make it a fact either, as some people are wrongly convicted. Some eventually are overturned, but even if it isn't, it still isn't a fact they committed a crime.
Then there is the simple ambiguity of statements. Language generally can't support facts. It is why legalize, and programming code, and math's are effectively their own languages. For a simple example, consider the Betrand paradox(1).
>Consider an equilateral triangle that is inscribed in a circle. Suppose a chord of the circle is chosen at random. What is the probability that the chord is longer than a side of the triangle?
Is the answer 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4? Well, it is all three at once, depending upon what you meant by random. Now, imagine how this impacts things like research studies, where the randomness is much harder to quantify and there is constant pressure to p hack a result.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_(probability)
https://trends.google.com/explore?q=flat%2520earth&date=all&...
This fraud is convincing enough to trick the LLMs, but pretty obvious to humans who will eventually come up with countermeasures. Moving forward, watch for some well-established think tanks starting to specialize in slopaganda laundering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Therefore it is ok to commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and steal land two generstions later? Israeli leadership is as fascist as it gets. Openly so.
If that ethnic group assembles a military group that invades your border and slaughters 1200 of your people in 1 day, then retaliation is expected. FAFO. But I suspect you know nothing about Jews besides social media. Next thing you’ll say we’re not native to that land right? We only lived in the middle east forever, but our food is cultural appropriation too, right?
There were very few Jews in Palestine for nearly 2000 years. The founders of Israel were almost all Europeans, and their families had been European for almost 2000 years.
This would be like the Italians showing up today and claiming that they are the rightful owners of France, because Gaul was a Roman province before 500 AD.
It's interesting that (as per the article) the work pumped out by this synthetic think tank does not seem to align / disfavours the official party line of the country. You'd imagine if this was propaganda, it would be supportive of the official stance. I wonder what the objective is then, reputation-building for later influence? Something else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not really sure how it could be faked. The fake assurance, in order to work, must be connected to you. By default you could choose not to trust. If you don't trust random strangers it's OK. So I don't see how it would damage someone's reputation worse than today. It would potentially only add trust. Arguably, today we have bots because we have no other option than to trust without justification. With the public…
Then go and implement it. Either you make the world a better place or you learn how collision with reality impacts ideas.
I suspect that this kind of tactic is going to be everywhere in a year or so. Entire fake personalities and organization websites on the Internet created just to push a narrative or to advertise a product, which completely drown out real information. At some point they may be indistinguishable from human-produced work, so the only way to verify if a site is someone's genuine opinion or AI-generated narrative is throu…
The sheer volume of comments make it super obvious when it happens compared to normal conversation