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

Check your fucking sources, people

brodzinski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#71

Post by ubertaco »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #69
wat10000 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your links are mostly about ownership, supposed sources of bias, and internal politics. I want to know what they've actually gotten wrong. The only example I'm seeing there is a claim about glyphosate, and the article is by the person Snopes said got it wrong, definitely no axe to grind there. That example seems extremely weak. Is that all there is?

Think about what you're asking me for here - you're asking me to produce examples of claims Snopes has made that are factually incorrect, when the results of search engines are curated by companies that pay the salaries of Snopes employees (through donations) and lobby whatever side of the political aisle whose narrative they want to see prevail. I could give plenty of examples, but you'd likely turn around and visit…

>You're claiming that there is some arbiter of truth out there that is immune to bias, which is completely nonsensical. Bias creeps in everywhere because at the end of the day someone has to pay the salaries of these "fact-checkers" and the people paying them want to see a certain narrative upheld. Pretending that isn't the case is absurd.

This is just epistemological nihilsm.

Maybe it should've been clear from your username, but it doesn't seem like you believe in the concept of truth itself in any useful way.

Consider: perhaps this is the product of your own biases? What then? Does that invalidate or prove your theory of the world? Or is it impossible to tell once you've adopted the notion that nothing can be verified (because that includes the claim that nothing can be verified)?

In any case, I'm sorry. That sounds like a really stressful way to live a life.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#72

Post by tinfoilhatter »

ubertaco wrote: post #71
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about what you're asking me for here - you're asking me to produce examples of claims Snopes has made that are factually incorrect, when the results of search engines are curated by companies that pay the salaries of Snopes employees (through donations) and lobby whatever side of the political aisle whose narrative they want to see prevail. I could give plenty of examples, but you'd likely turn around and visit…

>You're claiming that there is some arbiter of truth out there that is immune to bias, which is completely nonsensical. Bias creeps in everywhere because at the end of the day someone has to pay the salaries of these "fact-checkers" and the people paying them want to see a certain narrative upheld. Pretending that isn't the case is absurd. This is just epistemological nihilsm. Maybe it should've been clear from your…

Where did I say nothing can be verified? I'm strictly talking about the internet, which is a curated source of information. Are we going to pretend that search results Google doesn't like aren't returned by a query? Why can I go to an alternate search engine like Yandex and get completely different results? Which set of results holds the truth?

I don't need your pity - I'd much rather be a discerning individual that questions mainstream narratives than one who blindly accept what some "fact-checker" tells me is true because they've been deemed reputable by the organizations that pay their salaries, and provide the propaganda to them that will reaffirm the narrative they want to be perceived as true.

As Gerald Massey said -

They must find it difficult... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34SiUXZxUWQ

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#73

Post by wat10000 »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #69
wat10000 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your links are mostly about ownership, supposed sources of bias, and internal politics. I want to know what they've actually gotten wrong. The only example I'm seeing there is a claim about glyphosate, and the article is by the person Snopes said got it wrong, definitely no axe to grind there. That example seems extremely weak. Is that all there is?

Think about what you're asking me for here - you're asking me to produce examples of claims Snopes has made that are factually incorrect, when the results of search engines are curated by companies that pay the salaries of Snopes employees (through donations) and lobby whatever side of the political aisle whose narrative they want to see prevail. I could give plenty of examples, but you'd likely turn around and visit…

I don't know what you expect from me. You're saying I can't trust anything online because bias creeps in. Then you're saying I should trust your links that say that Snopes isn't trustworthy. Huh?

So far what you've provided me has zero informational content. You've given me links, but you've also said that none of that stuff is believable, so all that's left is a puddle of goo.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#74

Post by Kim_Bruning »

flail wrote: post #63
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick smoke check takes just a few minutes. "Follow each link in this document. Read each link's contents against the contents in this document. Create a report: for each link list a working hyperlink, whether it exists, what claim it supports, whether it supports or fails to support it, and why" If it returns a report claiming all correct? That's promising, but human verification is important. You've got a list of…

A quick smoke test, then. Gemini 3, Thinking Mode. The article: https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... The prompt: literally what you suggested. Gemini: The article focuses on the environmental and human labor costs of scaling Artificial Intelligence, specifically focusing on water usage, electricity, and "ghost work." Which is hilarious, since the article doesn't even mention the words "wate…

Ah! I finally got you somewhat replicated! It's https://gemini.google.com , when you use the free model.

* https://gemini.google.com/share/6bd33176b27c

Right, so https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... is actually a substack, gemini is blocked from accessing it, and is bouncing off and hallucinating instead. Ok, that's an actual bug, that should not lead to the model starting to hallucinate. Imo the correct response should have been to fail loudly; which would have been a verification signal of its own.

ps: See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48087485 ... I'm starting to think of it as "english is a new scripting language". Clearly the downside is that certain "runtime environments" are not compatible. %-/

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#75

Post by [deleted] »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #74
flail wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick smoke test, then. Gemini 3, Thinking Mode. The article: https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... The prompt: literally what you suggested. Gemini: The article focuses on the environmental and human labor costs of scaling Artificial Intelligence, specifically focusing on water usage, electricity, and "ghost work." Which is hilarious, since the article doesn't even mention the words "wate…

Ah! I finally got you somewhat replicated! It's https://gemini.google.com , when you use the free model. * https://gemini.google.com/share/6bd33176b27c Right, so https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... is actually a substack, gemini is blocked from accessing it, and is bouncing off and hallucinating instead. Ok, that's an actual bug, that should not lead to the model starting to hallucinate. I…

[deleted]

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#76

Post by Kim_Bruning »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #74
flail wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick smoke test, then. Gemini 3, Thinking Mode. The article: https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... The prompt: literally what you suggested. Gemini: The article focuses on the environmental and human labor costs of scaling Artificial Intelligence, specifically focusing on water usage, electricity, and "ghost work." Which is hilarious, since the article doesn't even mention the words "wate…

Ah! I finally got you somewhat replicated! It's https://gemini.google.com , when you use the free model. * https://gemini.google.com/share/6bd33176b27c Right, so https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... is actually a substack, gemini is blocked from accessing it, and is bouncing off and hallucinating instead. Ok, that's an actual bug, that should not lead to the model starting to hallucinate. I…

https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... "Follow each link in this document. Read each link's contents against the contents in this document. Create a report: for each link list a working hyperlink, whether it exists, what claim it supports, whether it supports or fails to support it, and why. If unable to fetch the initial document, Stop and report failure."

And now it errors out on gemini.google.com. . This is like early days unix scripting; I didn't add the equivalent of "#!/bin/bash -euo pipefail" ; and I didn't catch it because most systems already include something like it in their ".bashrc" (system prompt or weights) anyway.

This is so frustrating. I'm sorry. It's like the 1980's 8 bit era again, some systems actually work, others are terrible, and I didn't realize it can be like this for some folks. You could come away with the conclusion that this whole "computer" thing is all just a fad that'll never amount to anything. (meanwhile , the program works perfectly on my own machine, right over here of course %-) )

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#77

Post by tinfoilhatter »

wat10000 wrote: post #73
tinfoilhatter wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about what you're asking me for here - you're asking me to produce examples of claims Snopes has made that are factually incorrect, when the results of search engines are curated by companies that pay the salaries of Snopes employees (through donations) and lobby whatever side of the political aisle whose narrative they want to see prevail. I could give plenty of examples, but you'd likely turn around and visit…

I don't know what you expect from me. You're saying I can't trust anything online because bias creeps in. Then you're saying I should trust your links that say that Snopes isn't trustworthy. Huh? So far what you've provided me has zero informational content. You've given me links, but you've also said that none of that stuff is believable, so all that's left is a puddle of goo.

I never said you should trust my links, you should do your own research. What I did say is that bias is impossible to avoid and I implied that believing that there's a source of objective truth on the internet because it's been deemed to be so by some authority, is misguided.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#78

Post by princevegeta89 »

RajT88 wrote: post #66
ourmandave wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite is the 83-year-old AI grandma on youtube giving retirement advice. They put her in various settings and she looks and sounds very real. The only obvious tell is the eyes don't track right. But once they fix that, it's really going to be hard to know. All the comments are how great her advice is, etc. Every video has a link to a book she "wrote" on amazon. I didn't waste my time trying to figure out what t…

The one really pissing me off is this avalanche of "handmade goth" products, featuring a sad goth girl who supposedly made everything and is having a hard time making money because it's so time consuming. The videos show her making things like lamps, watches, etc. and it's realistic enough you might be fooled... ...If your feed wasn't full of goth girls selling the same exact items with the same exact story. It's a d…

Goth girls ... they went with the right kind of fetish after all

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#80

Post by wat10000 »

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #77
wat10000 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you expect from me. You're saying I can't trust anything online because bias creeps in. Then you're saying I should trust your links that say that Snopes isn't trustworthy. Huh? So far what you've provided me has zero informational content. You've given me links, but you've also said that none of that stuff is believable, so all that's left is a puddle of goo.

I never said you should trust my links, you should do your own research. What I did say is that bias is impossible to avoid and I implied that believing that there's a source of objective truth on the internet because it's been deemed to be so by some authority, is misguided.

Oh, please. You gave me links you said would “demonstrate” your claims. Then you preemptively attacked me for not buying it.

Meanwhile, all I said about these sites is that they have a good track record and that they give you enough information to do your own research to check their conclusions. But apparently you’re opposed to that when I’m doing it and not reaching the conclusions you want me to reach.

Post reply on HN