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

Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

math.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 145 posts

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#51

Post by TriangleEdge »

> Sorting through a pile of misinformation, trying to rebuild something true out of a collapsed mess of some truth buried in a mixture of nonsense and misunderstandings is a losing battle.

In short, I'm predicting port 80 and 443 as we know it today will see much less usage because of LLMs. Or that it'll move to more curated one off blogs like it used to be. Stack Overflow died because of LLMs. I'm not certain if other social media is next or not. Anyone want to guess at when HN will be a hot mess of bots and garbage?

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#52

Post by beezlebroxxxxxx »

sevensor wrote: post #21

The critique is somewhat misplaced. There have always been terrible, ignorant newspaper articles. There sometimes used to be good, informative ones, but this is getting scarcer and scarcer.

If anything, "yellow journalism" has been the norm. Being a journalist used to be a step above parasite and ambulance chaser in popular opinion. You didn't need a college degree, let alone an Ivy league degree like today, to do it. Most papers were blatant mouthpieces of owners or certain political parties. Everyone knew that. "Objectivity" was laughed at by reporters.

That shifted with Watergate, which, afterwards, journalism began to have a certain prestige as "crusading truth seekers." Journalists doubled down on that view, cultivated it, and began to believe in it. Nowadays, journalism (at least in major markets) is more about prestige and access to power. Some journalists have a complex and believe that they have the access to the truth, leading to much handwringing about its "professionalism".

In reality, journalism is closer to writing in a journal after a party: they just offer accounts of events. That we expect better from them is, in part, a creation of their own making that is now starting to bite them in the ass.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#53

Post by muglug »

SilverElfin wrote: post #25
electric_muse wrote: post #13

[flagged]

The link doesn’t work for me, but based off your comment: I can accept that mainstream journalism is generally in decline in various ways. But it is curious they chose to single out WSJ, which is considered more balanced and less biased than NYT or whoever else ( https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart ). Or is it just to point out that even WSJ is subject to this issue?

Framing it as a spectrum between Left and Right is absolutely daft.

In any European country the New York Times opinion pages would be seen as pretty centrist, or even centre-right.

That so much of US media and political sphere skews heavily to the right distorts the overall picture.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#54

Post by gainda »

Mistletoe wrote: post #17
jeffbee wrote: post #10

Reading books is A-OK but you can't ignore online, and especially the online-offline nexus. Witness this week's escalation of a 4chan beef into a real-world assassination, another thing that the WSJ misreported.

What?

Allegedly, Charlie Kirk's killer, Tyler Robinson, may have been a groyper.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#55

Post by Conlectus »

nullbyte wrote: post #11

Joe Rogan had Michio Kaku on once, it was a fun episode

I’m not sure if this is the point you mean to make, but Michio Kanu is one of the bigger cranks in physics communication. He said ion an (maybe the Joe Rigan interview?) that quantum computers would be able to act as a truth detector for AI. He wrote a whole book on quantum computing in fact despite clearly not understanding it at all[0].

[0]: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7321

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#56

Post by hn_throw_250910 »

The focus on technical and scientific studies here shouldn’t dissuade anyone from questioning more approachable subject matters, namely anything involving studies or scientific inquiries should be placed under suspicion. Moreso when it relates to hot headed topics of the moment that drive clicks and engagement (outrage).

This all reminds me of the Gell-Man Amnesia which is an absolutely real thing, and this turn of events with regards to WSJs capability (if it can be called that) shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#57

Post by jacobgkau »

tracker1 wrote: post #36

I'm not sure why the author is making digs at Joe Rogan so much... I mean, his podcast isn't really a deep dive into anything, its more conversations with generally interesting people from a number of different backgrounds. Sometimes MMA, sometimes conspiracy nuts... It's not a scientific podcast and I'm not sure that anyone is claiming it is. Of course, this is quite a bit different than bought and paid for corporat…

> I will separate Fox's written/web coverage as a bit better than their TV counterpart (and the others in general) though.

I regularly check Fox's website along with CNN and NewsNation, which gets me ostensibly right/left/center views on things. Having not seen much TV Fox, I assumed Fox News Digital put more spin on things. It could just be the stupid little quip taglines they put over all of their image thumbnails that made me think that, as opposed to the actual article content, though.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#58

Post by jeffbee »

Mistletoe wrote: post #17
jeffbee wrote: post #10

Reading books is A-OK but you can't ignore online, and especially the online-offline nexus. Witness this week's escalation of a 4chan beef into a real-world assassination, another thing that the WSJ misreported.

What?

I know it's hard to be this online, and I don't blame you for not being. Charlie Kirk was shot by a Nick Fuentes Groyper in the ultimate escalation of an online meme war that has been leaking into the real world for at least the last 6 years. The WSJ is unable to report on this effectively, because they are insufficiently online. They need a meme culture desk.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#59

Post by cm2187 »

electric_muse wrote: post #13

[flagged]

From the WSJ article:

> The field, they argue, has discovered little of importance in the last 50 years, because it is dominated by groupthink and silences anyone who dares to dissent from mainstream ideas, like string theory.

I don't agree with the second part of the sentence, i.e. about the reason, not that I disagree, just that I have no idea why that is. But the first part, about discovering little of importance, is true though.

Just look back at what theoretical physist has yielded in term of practical implications historically. XVIII century physics gave us gravitation, thermo-dynamics, and basically enabled the industrial revolution. XIX century physics gave us electricity, electro-magnetism, computers, etc. First half of the XX century gave us nuclear energy, lasers, etc. But is there any major technology that post 1960s theoretical physics has given us? I can't think of any example.

Re: Epistemic Collapse at the WSJ

#60

Post by tiltowait »

muglug wrote: post #53
SilverElfin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link doesn’t work for me, but based off your comment: I can accept that mainstream journalism is generally in decline in various ways. But it is curious they chose to single out WSJ, which is considered more balanced and less biased than NYT or whoever else ( https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart ). Or is it just to point out that even WSJ is subject to this issue?

Framing it as a spectrum between Left and Right is absolutely daft. In any European country the New York Times opinion pages would be seen as pretty centrist, or even centre-right. That so much of US media and political sphere skews heavily to the right distorts the overall picture.

How is it daft when we’re discussing a critique of an American institution by another American institution?

“Other places are further left” seems irrelevant to this discussion.

Post reply on HN