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

Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

neutronbytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#11

Post by toenail »

Spivak wrote: post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

> The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done.

Selective fact checking that only happens when you're prejudiced against the people who presented the information? Sounds like confrontational activism.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#13

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

Spivak wrote: post #5
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think you're agreeing with me? I'm not gonna wade into the issue in the link, but assuming its premise for purposes of discussion you have misinformation spread in a channel with a huge amount of reach — official government communications during a crisis, and the people trying to fact check it and correct the record failed miserably even with what they believed to be the truth and scientific evidence on their side.

Not every comment is a disagreement. You should read the link though.

It’s two issues.

Fact checkers are needed because of misinformation, “official sources” are spreading their own misinformation.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#14

Post by riedel »

roenxi wrote: post #7
Spivak wrote: post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

The incentives are against good fact checking. There are 3 broad kinds of misinformation: 1) Stuff that just isn't true and is kinda stupid. Flat earth territory (you can literally see the sea curve, c like). Barely worth debunking because nobody who cares about the truth is going to hold on to an opinion like that, but something for fact checkers to do. 2) Stuff that is not true but has powerful interests pushing it…

I guess it all depends on the distribution/business model of fact checking. News magazines and classical broadcasting can actually decide what to publish. Other might call it censorship if non-verifiable stuff does not happen there, but that is clearly a matter of scaling and money. I agree that fact checking the internet is useless. However, that is why I heavily rely on our well financed national public broadcasting. In cases that they cannot check, I at least get mostly a disclaimer like 'war party is source of information'.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#15

Post by kjeldsendk »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #3
Spivak wrote: post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

[flagged]

Keeping distance to people under a virus pandemic is pretty much self explained.

"In fact, the only real purpose the guidance served was as a justification to suppress Americans’ free speech"

Says everything about that article.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#17

Post by blowski »

roenxi wrote: post #7
Spivak wrote: post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

The incentives are against good fact checking. There are 3 broad kinds of misinformation: 1) Stuff that just isn't true and is kinda stupid. Flat earth territory (you can literally see the sea curve, c like). Barely worth debunking because nobody who cares about the truth is going to hold on to an opinion like that, but something for fact checkers to do. 2) Stuff that is not true but has powerful interests pushing it…

Also, there are fuzzy lines between opinions, consensus, and facts. What may be considered a fact amongst one group will be described as a wrong opinion by another. Chances are, the LLMs will try to work out what group you are in, and present accordingly, without seeking any real truth.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#18

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

Spivak wrote: post #2

"Fact checking" as a means of combating mis/disnformation is kinda doomed from the start. The whole reason you're fact checking in the first place is because some nugget of bullshit was put into some large distribution channel and the damage is already done. Nobody reads the retraction, fact checkers by their very nature have smaller reach than the misinformation they're chasing. The Wikipedia list of common misconce…

We could make it a little less bad by not treating fact checker content the same as the content that it refers to. Google news has a "fact checking" section at the bottom as if it were the same sort of thing as "entertainment" or "science".

If you could subscribe to somebody's fact checking work, it could appear as annotations on the original content that was being checked. You could then either delay that content from showing up in your feed until it was checked, or you could subscribe to retraction related notifications which could be filtered based on whether you browser thinks you actually saw the retracted thing. We could divert some ad revenue to fact checkers (the checkers could be chosen by the users, as a browser setting, and communicated to the ad).

I'm not confident that the protocol that I'm designing for this is any good, but I am confident that the problem won't get any better until we design some kind of protocol for it and bake it into the web at a fundamental level.

And yes, you should do it for yourself also. But there's no reason to do that in a vacuum.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#19

Post by defrost »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #13
Spivak wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're agreeing with me? I'm not gonna wade into the issue in the link, but assuming its premise for purposes of discussion you have misinformation spread in a channel with a huge amount of reach — official government communications during a crisis, and the people trying to fact check it and correct the record failed miserably even with what they believed to be the truth and scientific evidence on their side.

Not every comment is a disagreement. You should read the link though. It’s two issues. Fact checkers are needed because of misinformation, “official sources” are spreading their own misinformation.

The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission.

That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#20

Post by photochemsyn »

Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers initiates infinite recursion... Specifically, the section on the 'audacious claim' that small modular reactors generate more long-term waste (per unit of energy generated) than much larger traditional reactors does seem to have some support [1], based on issues like irradiation of the support structure (possibly more support structure is needed for many small reactors vs. one big reactor, plus the small structure might get a higher net flux of neutrons), and cases where sodium metal coolant is used as it becomes lowishly radioactive. The tradeoff I suppose is less risk of meltdown in the small modular designs?

The latest pebble-bed SMR designs avoid some of these problems as they use helium as the coolant, but similar efforts in South Africa failed several decades ago as the graphite pebbles broke down and graphite dust (and fuel particles) clogged the system. Now several plants in China and Canada using pebble-bed are currently in the works or operational (notably the one in China passed a natural-cooldown-after-loss-of-power test, i.e. no need to fire up a diesel generator to keep the coolant flowing to prevent meltdown[2]). However, there could be other catastrophic scenarios, as graphite is flammable and when hot reacts with water to form hydrogen. Loss-of-coolant >20% seems bad[3].

[1] https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/interview-small-modular-reac...

[2] https://www.modernpowersystems.com/news/chinas-htr-pm-reacto...

"Three-dimensional modeling and loss-of-coolant accident analysis of high temperature gas cooled reactor" [3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03064...

Post reply on HN