Humane execs leave company to found AI fact-checking startup

Post by mistermann » Wed, Jul 10, 2024, 12:38 AM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #44

mistermann wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Appealing to evidence is more objective Assuming one's evidence is subjective, and one's judgment of it, and some other things. > than appealing to vibes or appealing to baseless authority. "Baseful" authorities are not necessarily objective. In fact, we have massive amounts of evidence that they are very often not.

Of course you are correct on both points. But subjective doesn't mean "wrong" or "open to every interpretation", it just mean more than one interpretation, and often narrowing down possibilities makes the truth easy to see. Different people disagree for different reasons. But only the most deranged disagree that what they can do and effect is worse evidence than some authority. So things like "trying it for yourself"…

Post by ypeterholmes » Thu, Jul 18, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #38

ypeterholmes wrote: post #25

I'm curious- what's their strategy for determining what's true? Is it an Orwellian setup where certain media organizations (eg. NYT, Reuters, Wikipedia) are deemed to be an authoritative ministry of truth?

The article explains that: > Infactory will pull information directly from trusted resources Of course it means assuming anything the NYT says is true. Biden is sharp as a tack, it's a fact! Nah, actually the article says they'll avoid politics. They want to be a better Bloomberg Terminal apparently, and only focus on quantitative data for business purposes. Basically OurWorldInData + LLMs. In theory you can actually…