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

Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 197 posts

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#151

Post by danieltillett »

gaius wrote: post #131
chiefalchemist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust..." Spot on. What the more purely science-mind can't seem to grasp is facts are only as good as the receivers' trust of the source. The irony is, there's plenty of science to support this. Yet, ironically, science too ignores itself. If…

But instead of owning it's many shortcomings and past transgressions (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc. Science gave us CFCs then berated us for the hole in the ozone layer...

Do know what CFC's replaced - ammonia? Ammonia was used in refrigeration before CFC's were invented and when your fridge developed a leak you were gassed to death.

Nobody foresaw what CFC's would do to the ozone layer. It took science to find this.

I have never seen a claim from science that something is safe. At best you get a claim that something appears to have minimal risks. Minimal != Zero

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#152

Post by cortesoft »

carapace wrote: post #149
cortesoft wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change denial isn't denying some inevitable thing that is so horrible it makes sense not to think about it; there ARE steps we can take to fix the problem.

I don't understand what you're saying, do you mean there are people who deny the problem yet still take steps to fix it?

No, I am just commenting that it only makes rational sense to ignore a doomsday-type problem if there is no way to avoid it.

For example, we all know we are going to die at some point. It is inevitable, and nothing we do is going to prevent us from eventually dying. Because there is nothing we can do, it makes sense for us to ignore the problem, and possibly even to delude ourselves that we will live forever. There is no cost, since we are going to die eventually no matter what we tell ourselves.

However, with climate change, there ARE steps we can take today to prevent the catastrophe. Therefore, there is no rationalization for ignoring the problem.

I know human brains don't work rationally, though, but I thought it was useful to make the distinction.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#153

Post by danieltillett »

philwelch wrote: post #117
lightbyte wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how averages work. If 9 people have an IQ of 100 and 1 has an IQ of 10, the average is 91. 9/10 people are still above that.

“Average” can mean “median”. Also, human IQ is distributed in such a way that the mean is approximately also the median, which, by definition of IQ, is 100.

IQ is just a measure of intelligence mapped back on to a standard distribution with a mean of 100 and SD of 15. The mean equals the median of a standard distribution by definition.

The reality is if you measured absolute intelligence that it would not be a standard distribution (there are more people at the bottom than expected), but it would be close. The reason why is that intelligence is the result of tens of thousands of independent factors (mostly genes).

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#154

Post by [deleted] »

gameswithgo wrote: post #48
uptown wrote: post #41

There's a relevant and insightful thread on Twitter posted by David Roberts here: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/988144274720964608 His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust. That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to, so in orde…

>That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure to In the case of climate change it is actually possible to self-inform yourself about some of the key aspects of climate change. Raw data is freely available (noaa and others), and some simple scripts can answer questions like "are the claimed warming trends real or artifacts of bias due to adjustments or other factors". This…

[deleted]

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#155

Post by ryanobjc »

cortesoft wrote: post #142
nothrabannosir wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish scientific journals would start encouraging “human language”, as opposed to impenetrable thickets of mathematical gobbledygook. When I was still in academia, reading papers germane to my field was a chore. It would take considerable time to decipher a complex looking mathematical equation, only to go, “oh, they just mean X.” Basically as soon as I saw a \Sum sign, I knew the equation was pointless peacocking.…

The problem is that using 'human language' is inherently hiding complexity by using an abstraction. You are going to lose information, and that information is probably important to fully understand the thesis of a science paper.

Academic papers are written in a difficult to read style. It's more than being precise, the use of jargon, and latex at work. It's a deliberate process of puffing up the difficulty of the work by making it hard for someone else to understand. Part of this is the nature of scientists - they are not educators, nor do they worry about teaching others (ironic given the roles of professors in universities).

A well written paper takes a sympathetic view of the reader and helps guide them to understanding. This is not how academics are taught how to write. It's like a form of handed-down abuse.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#156

Post by kazinator »

If fake videos become ubiquitous, people will not believe videos any more.

Only complete idiots will riot over the content of a video. (The little problem there being that we have complete idiots.)

There is one main problem with videos losing their credibility due to faking: namely that videos are a good weapon for documenting some nasty shit done by bad people.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#157

Post by noxecanexx »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #138
VikingCoder wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm relating the perspective some people have on science. To them, it's chaotic. Answers change constantly. "Theory" is a derogatory term to them. The conversation here is not how any given fact is right or wrong. The conversation here is that "scientific facts" seem to change at a dizzying pace to them, without being tethered to reality. "Global warming?!? It's SNOWING right now!" Do cell phones cause cancer? Do vac…

Okay, sorry I didn't pick up on that. My fault for not paying better attention. I agree, but I guess I'm both pushing a bit back on people to have some common sense when ascribing credibility to a source and also push some blame on deliberate bad actors (muddling what is true, and also reducing peoples' trust in the system overall).

You are falling into the same trap described by @chiefalchemsit. Saying normal people should have common sense only makes matters worse

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#158

Post by wybiral »

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #39
wybiral wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For news we can assume that it's signed by the journalists and news agencies who created the content. Or who researched the origin and are willing to put their credibility on the line. Edit: To clarify, this doesn't prove if something is real or fake. It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust.

>It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust. This kills anonymous sources, maybe literally under hostile regimes. If it's signed by the equipment that originally recorded it (you're smuggling evidence of crimes out), you may not be able to verify it anyway.

It would be signed by the journalists or news agencies verifying their report.

Individual sources can still be anonymous.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#159

Post by VikingCoder »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #138
VikingCoder wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm relating the perspective some people have on science. To them, it's chaotic. Answers change constantly. "Theory" is a derogatory term to them. The conversation here is not how any given fact is right or wrong. The conversation here is that "scientific facts" seem to change at a dizzying pace to them, without being tethered to reality. "Global warming?!? It's SNOWING right now!" Do cell phones cause cancer? Do vac…

Okay, sorry I didn't pick up on that. My fault for not paying better attention. I agree, but I guess I'm both pushing a bit back on people to have some common sense when ascribing credibility to a source and also push some blame on deliberate bad actors (muddling what is true, and also reducing peoples' trust in the system overall).

What's "common sense" to you undoubtedly relies on your culture, and core assumptions you make. The things you value, and the things you discredit. Your world view.

I have bought lottery tickets, even though I know it's a "Stupid Tax." And apparently many other people do, too:

"Americans Spend More On Lottery Tickets Than On Movies, Video Games, Music, Sports Tix And Books Combined" [1]

Even though there's ample evidence that:

"Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable" [2]

A cynic could conclude that people are stupid. I'm not sure what an optimist would conclude, but I think I'd encourage them to consider their peers from the perspective of an anthropologist... View the culture as "different," not "wrong."

[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-12/2016-americans-spe...

[2] http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#160

Post by amirmc »

Sevii wrote: post #65
amirmc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc.) Science blames the customer/consumer. It feels like there's a conflation of science and science reporting in here somewhere. Most of the actual research output makes measured claims but the journalism around it ends up being sensationalised (yes, some researchers also participate in that but not as a rule).

Science is science reporting. Normal people can only understand what is reported. If you want to read the actual papers, prepare to spend a couple hours to barely understand what is going on. Most people aren’t able to do that for all of the hundreds of papers published each year that could be relevant to their lives.

> Science is science reporting.

No, it is not. This is why I drew the distinction in the first place.

> Normal people can only understand what is reported.

Which backs up my point that sensationalised reporting is a problem. Peer-reviewed, scientific papers are written for other scientific researchers — that's as it should be.

Post reply on HN