Sloptimized

@wildgrass said
AI doesn't get facts from anywhere.

AI reads text and generates text. You need to verify that the sources are trustworthy, that the data was correctly interpreted, and that the conclusions match with reality.

AI does not get facts from anywhere, it cannot do calculations without some means that weighs one data point up against another, some library that evaluates what words mean, how measure, how to create a truth table. Bias is always built into it.

@KellyJay said
AI does not get facts from anywhere, it cannot do calculations without some means that weighs one data point up against another, some library that evaluates what words mean, how measure, how to create a truth table. Bias is always built into it.

Everything is nothing and nothing is everything so we all just rot?

Nope. Societies are built on a common knowledge base, and this knowledge base is built on evidence. That's the truth, that's the fact, until and unless some additional evidence displaces it. There's always the possibility that what we "know" isn't true, and obviously people can disagree, but there's still a common set of facts. Geocentric vs. heliocentric is a classic example. The insidiousness of AI is that users can corrupt the knowledge base with fake evidence. And the simple solution to this is: check the evidence. Only 1 in 200 people do that.

@wildgrass said
Everything is nothing and nothing is everything so we all just rot?

Nope. Societies are built on a common knowledge base, and this knowledge base is built on evidence. That's the truth, that's the fact, until and unless some additional evidence displaces it. There's always the possibility that what we "know" isn't true, and obviously people can disagree, but there's stil ...[text shortened]... fake evidence. And the simple solution to this is: check the evidence. Only 1 in 200 people do that.

For the most part, common human knowledge is just what we as groups think, and that isn’t always a good reflection of reality. I do agree with you, seeking truth requires legwork, checking, and double-checking sources and claims.

@KellyJay said
For the most part, common human knowledge is just what we as groups think, and that isn’t always a good reflection of reality. I do agree with you, seeking truth requires legwork, checking, and double-checking sources and claims.

Ok, good. So.... if seeking truth requires those things, why aren't people doing them? Why are most people refusing to put in that work?

@wildgrass said
Ok, good. So.... if seeking truth requires those things, why aren't people doing them? Why are most people refusing to put in that work?

I’d say because it’s painful, seeking truth requires humility, admitting one is wrong, and people prefer to confirm they are right. If you run into truth that you do not like, you only have two choices: cover it up with things that put up reasons to reject it so you can forget about it, or change your mind. We are more apt to defend what we want than accept what we have been rejecting.