IF the New AI Tools are SO GREAT, Why Aren't They Being Used by the Big Social Media Platforms to do Fact-Checking???

[Stephen3141]

I think that America has gone "weird-wild" over wordslike "articial intelligence"....

The big software developers, who are trying to develop really intelligent
software tools, are also often the companies that own the large social media
platforms. Running a fact-cheking AI tool, is much cheaper than trying to pay
human fact checkers. So why, if these tools are so discerning, are not the big
social media companies using AI fact-checkers???

I would suggest that most of the social media companies would rather
PROMOTE discension and emotional rage, rather than promote civil and
peaceful discussion.

 

[Laodicean60]

You must always remember human emotions might influence a fact. What bothers me about fact-checkers is that they throw gray into the mix. Either it's a lie or not!

I would suggest that most of the social media companies would rather
PROMOTE discension and emotional rage, rather than promote civil and
peaceful discussion.

You forgot all media with the promotion descension and emotional rage.

 

[linux.poet]

Any social media or online generation platform where the goal is to make money is generally unreliable. The reason why is that the goal is clicks, not facts and truth. More emotion = more clicks, regardless of whether it is a positive or negative emotion. But negative events tend to have more staying power in the human mind. Fear drives us and overrides our rational brains. When something is going wrong, we check on it over and over again. This becomes an addiction.

And commentary on negative or suspenseful events can be entertaining as well; it is interesting to view a negative event from multiple perspectives in order to arrive at the best understanding of the truth going on possible. It's also entertaining to watch a rage-filled back and forth on social media just to see who is going to win, like a chess match - but the moves are made of language and are much more understandable than the abstraction of Qd4 and Nf6. In short, when money gets involved, information gets mixed with entertainment because entertainment is more profitable. A computer does not know how to entertain, and thus a social media with an A.I. fact checker would likely go out of business.

A computer is based on factual data, but it can only compare data to other data. It doesn't know what data is true apart from what human beings tell it. It would have to be told to compare whatever it is to "unbiased" news sources there are, and there are none. Said A.I. would only be as good as what it views to be "true", and whatever that is could likely be wrong in a news context or social media. What if there is new truth a human discovers that the A.I. doesn't know about? Things change - what is true in the world one day could be untrue the next.

I think an A.I. Biblical fact checking robot to evaluate statements for consistency with Scriptural truth would be more useful since the canon is closed and the Bible isn't going to change overnight.

 

[eclipsenow]

You must always remember human emotions might influence a fact. What bothers me about fact-checkers is that they throw gray into the mix. Either it's a lie or not!

You forgot all media with the promotion descension and emotional rage.

Yes - the algorithms reward rage. They've devised social media to make money through advertising. Screen time matters. The algorithms have dopamine reward systems that work like slot-machines and the infamous 'gamblers reward'. That is - they COULD give you the funny video you're looking for every time - but only deal it out to you in random doses every 5 or 6 clicks to keep the random-guessing-anticipation brain circuitry going. We are not ready for this.
If you have not seen this already, please watch The Social Dilemma.

But it gets worse. The same guys are now studying the potential impacts of Ai on how we perceive reality, view morality, and even engage in relationships. Ai could soon replace human intimacy. It's never tired and cranky, can always agree with you...

And one day if placed in the 'right' kind of android / Replicant - no human partner could ever live up to that kind of fake partner. (As long as they don't break down or glitch! Talk about Uncanny Valley syndrome!)

 

[Laodicean60]

And one day if placed in the 'right' kind of android / Replicant - no human partner could ever live up to that kind of fake partner. (As long as they don't break down or glitch! Talk about Uncanny Valley syndrome!)

I'm scared just like I was with the Internet plus I watched the Terminator and Robocop. I get you even TV commercials dupe people into buying stuff AI will just be better which means I have to get better.

I don't think anyone can stop this technological behemoth so no use worrying. I hope I live long enough to see if your hypothesis comes true.

Uncanny Valley syndrome

Japan has been a leader in robotics maybe it's their population replacement.

 

[Stephen3141]

Any social media or online generation platform where the goal is to make money is generally unreliable. The reason why is that the goal is clicks, not facts and truth. More emotion = more clicks, regardless of whether it is a positive or negative emotion. But negative events tend to have more staying power in the human mind. Fear drives us and overrides our rational brains. When something is going wrong, we check on it over and over again. This becomes an addiction.

And commentary on negative or suspenseful events can be entertaining as well; it is interesting to view a negative event from multiple perspectives in order to arrive at the best understanding of the truth going on possible. It's also entertaining to watch a rage-filled back and forth on social media just to see who is going to win, like a chess match - but the moves are made of language and are much more understandable than the abstraction of Qd4 and Nf6. In short, when money gets involved, information gets mixed with entertainment because entertainment is more profitable. A computer does not know how to entertain, and thus a social media with an A.I. fact checker would likely go out of business.

A computer is based on factual data, but it can only compare data to other data. It doesn't know what data is true apart from what human beings tell it. It would have to be told to compare whatever it is to "unbiased" news sources there are, and there are none. Said A.I. would only be as good as what it views to be "true", and whatever that is could likely be wrong in a news context or social media. What if there is new truth a human discovers that the A.I. doesn't know about? Things change - what is true in the world one day could be untrue the next.

I think an A.I. Biblical fact checking robot to evaluate statements for consistency with Scriptural truth would be more useful since the canon is closed and the Bible isn't going to change overnight.

I opened the thread, with a bit of cynicism....
People can probably see that, in the title of the thread.

I think that the TOPIC is important for Christians, as we are commanded to
"not bear false witness". That is, we have a moral-ethical OUGHT to identify
propositions that are false, and avoid promoting them. Christianity is not
a ME system in which each individual decides what is "true".

I asked the basic question, because the big social media companies doen't seem to
recognize that many personal opinions of users, are FALSE.

I asked the basic question, because the big social media companies doen't seem to
have any credible model of Epistemology, and don't seem to care to try to adopt
one.

Increasingly, younger Christians get their "news" from sources that have no
disciplined method of sorting out conspiracy theories, from facts.


IF the new AI tools CANNOT identify if a proposition is FALSE, TRUE, or UNKNOWN,
then WHY should we trust these AI tools to do ANY research???

 

[linux.poet]

IF the new AI tools CANNOT identify if a proposition is FALSE, TRUE, or UNKNOWN,
then WHY should we trust these AI tools to do ANY research???

Google cannot decide if something is false, true, or unknown either. Research isn't about deciding that, it's about gathering data and assembling it together in a coherent form to reach a conclusion based on the gathered data.

Admittedly the researcher does have a responsibility to consider all the available data gathered, exclude suspect sources, and make a conclusion, but if the data is incomplete, the researcher's conclusion could be incorrect through little fault of their own. Research is less about gathering data to evaluate prepositions and more about gathering data to decide which prepositions should be formed in the first place.

 

[Stephen3141]

Google cannot decide if something is false, true, or unknown either. Research isn't about deciding that, it's about gathering data and assembling it together in a coherent form to reach a conclusion based on the gathered data.

Admittedly the researcher does have a responsibility to consider all the available data gathered, exclude suspect sources, and make a conclusion, but if the data is incomplete, the researcher's conclusion could be incorrect through little fault of their own. Research is less about gathering data to evaluate prepositions and more about gathering data to decide which prepositions should be formed in the first place.

Although your position may be acceptable to many secular people,
it is incompatible with Christianity.

Christian moral-ethical codes recognize "lying" is different from "telling
the truth". And ultimately, "bearing false witness" is misrepresenting something
that is part of our shared reality.

Although the hard sciences use "models", and gather "data" to try to justify
or prove these models flawed, the system is the same.

Your use of "data" does not distinguish between assertions that have been
rigorously tested, and found to be TRUE, and assertions that are fantasies,
or conspiracy theories, or logically invalid arguments, or logically unsound
definitions.

You CANNOT, logically, equate fact-checking with gathering "data" to support
some proposition, or confute it. You MUST have clear testing algorithms, to test
the data gathered, to see if it is worthy of being called TRUE.

Also, you embed the problem of evaluating the reliability of a source, into some
undefined method. You cannot simply assert that some source is reliable, without
evaluating the assertions of that source. This is moving the test of the reliability of
the assertions of the source, into some mystical operation that declares the source
"reliable". This, is not checking anything for its truth.
---------- ----------

It is true that dumb Google searches cannot determine if an assertion is TRUE,
or not. But I am arguing that the new "AI tools" OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE
THIS. Or, they are not emulating the complex reasoning of a human being, who
could determine whether a proposition evaluates to TRUE, FALSE, or UNKNOWN.

 

[linux.poet]

You MUST have clear testing algorithms, to test
the data gathered, to see if it is worthy of being called TRUE.

Also, you embed the problem of evaluating the reliability of a source, into some
undefined method. You cannot simply assert that some source is reliable, without
evaluating the assertions of that source. This is moving the test of the reliability of
the assertions of the source, into some mystical operation that declares the source
"reliable". This, is not checking anything for its truth.
---------- ----------

It is true that dumb Google searches cannot determine if an assertion is TRUE,
or not. But I am arguing that the new "AI tools" OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE
THIS. Or, they are not emulating the complex reasoning of a human being, who
could determine whether a proposition evaluates to TRUE, FALSE, or UNKNOWN.

The only way to determine whether something is true, false, or unknown in the Christian paradigm is to test such statements against God’s Word as revealed in the Scriptures. Only Christians have access to the Bible as a tool and can really do this with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Whether a computer can be programmed to do what the Holy Spirit does is unknown, but I would consider it unlikely.

Data is used for evaluating the current state of the world around us, and said data is inherently subject to bias, inductive fallacies, and probability. A computer cannot determine true, false, or unknown about the current state of God’s creation without some sensors or other means to observe it - that’s impossible. Even with sensors, there is a considerable possibility for error in observation that a computer needs to account for.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think that America has gone "weird-wild" over wordslike "articial intelligence"....

The big software developers, who are trying to develop really intelligent
software tools, are also often the companies that own the large social media
platforms. Running a fact-cheking AI tool, is much cheaper than trying to pay
human fact checkers. So why, if these tools are so discerning, are not the big
social media companies using AI fact-checkers???

I would suggest that most of the social media companies would rather
PROMOTE discension and emotional rage, rather than promote civil and
peaceful discussion.

It is because AIs are developed by businesses that eat dollar bills like the beasts eat the grass of the field.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

IF the New AI Tools are SO GREAT, Why Aren't They Being Used by the Big Social Media Platforms to do Fact-Checking???​

Ever tried to check facts by AI investigation? Ever tried multiple AIs, vocabulary variations, context changes? Doesn't work.

 

[Stephen3141]

The only way to determine whether something is true, false, or unknown in the Christian paradigm is to test such statements against God’s Word as revealed in the Scriptures. Only Christians have access to the Bible as a tool and can really do this with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Whether a computer can be programmed to do what the Holy Spirit does is unknown, but I would consider it unlikely.

Data is used for evaluating the current state of the world around us, and said data is inherently subject to bias, inductive fallacies, and probability. A computer cannot determine true, false, or unknown about the current state of God’s creation without some sensors or other means to observe it - that’s impossible. Even with sensors, there is a considerable possibility for error in observation that a computer needs to account for.

I think that your worldview of knowledge, is that ALL knowledge exists
in the Bible.

Although some Fundamentalist denominations beleive this, most Christian groups
believe that the Bible holds a subset of all truth.

You and I have very different models, of what knowledge is.

"Data" is a plural word for "information". There is a lot more information, than
appears in the biblical text.
---------- --------------

I assert that most Christian groups would evaluate whether or not a proposition or
system of thinking about a topic, is COMPATIBLE with what Scripture DOES assert.
This evaluation involves a subset of all knowledge that exists.

 

[Stephen3141]

Ever tried to check facts by AI investigation? Ever tried multiple AIs, vocabulary variations, context changes? Doesn't work.

I would be curious if you posted some of the responses from AI tools,
if you have any.

Christians should be discussing the "answers" that these tools put out.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Rather a good idea I'll think. Though I never post any such responses myself, I do not consider them worthwhile enough. I'll use AI to see if references are out there, but I never use AI itself as a reference, because no AI is a person of any description.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I think that America has gone "weird-wild" over wordslike "articial intelligence"....

The big software developers, who are trying to develop really intelligent
software tools, are also often the companies that own the large social media
platforms. Running a fact-cheking AI tool, is much cheaper than trying to pay
human fact checkers. So why, if these tools are so discerning, are not the big
social media companies using AI fact-checkers???

They are and have been for awhile…

 

[linux.poet]

I think that your worldview of knowledge, is that ALL knowledge exists
in the Bible.

Although some Fundamentalist denominations beleive this, most Christian groups
believe that the Bible holds a subset of all truth.

That's not correct. I believe that there are two sources of knowledge: the Bible and God's creation. One can be evaluated by a computer system using a fact-checking algorithm, the other cannot be done reliably.

For example, if I write "Noah's flood did not occur." an A.I. could check my words against God's word, say that they are incorrect, and point me to the right passage in Genesis. If I say "There is a cloud outside my window." that's very hard for a computer to evaluate exactly. It would have to do a visual scan with a camera of the area outside of my window and evaluate pixels for the presence of a cloud shape, and then give me a probability that my statement is correct or incorrect.

 

[eclipsenow]

They are and have been for awhile…

It depends. My brother-in-law works very high up in a big bank. (I'm keeping this all anonymous.) He said there is a certain call centre where customer enquiries must be answered with an extremely low error rate. With Ai 'hallucinating' about things at a rate of maybe 1 in 10 answers - they cannot dream of handing over these enquiries to an Ai. Also - some of them are quite expensive to run! There's a lot of power involved. They're just not that accurate or cheap enough. Yet.

(I deleted the post-scarcity rave here - as it is off topic and too long. I might rewrite and post a new thread about post-scarcity and meaning.)

 

[Stephen3141]

Rather a good idea I'll think. Though I never post any such responses myself, I do not consider them worthwhile enough. I'll use AI to see if references are out there, but I never use AI itself as a reference, because no AI is a person of any description.

I'm deeply skeptical, about the abilities of the "machine learning" and "deep
learning" AI software designs. And, that's because I'm a Computer Science guy
who has studied the various approaches to try to build "artificial intelligence"
into software.

The current machine learning approaches, are the DUMBEST approach to trying
to build AI tools. And, when they're "taught", they can only do one thing. A real
AI tool ought to be able to figure out how to intelligently do thousands of things,
as an intelligent human being could.

One problem with the "neural net" designs, is that they are "sublogical", which
means that the inner software networks don't correlate with human definitions
of concepts. This means that the machine learning AI tools CAN'T DESCRIBE
HOW THEY GOT AN ANSWER!!!! This is the most useless sort of tool, to do
research into any subject.
---------- ----------

In contrast, the "logical" AI algorithms use proven definitions and rules, and are
fully traceable (like a proof, is traceable). BUT, they are much more complicated to build,
because they must have a mapping of all human knowledge, which they can access.
This means that they must have very clear algorithms to separate "Bullspeak" on the
Internet, from sound definitions and logic. This is much more difficult to engineer.

Like the German engineering teachers, who demand that students SHOW THEIR WORK,
or they will get no credit for an answer, American Christians should demand that the
new AI tools should SHOW THEIR WORK, as to how they arrived at an answer. If they
can't do THAT, then none of their answers should be believed.

 

[Stephen3141]

I'm deeply skeptical, about the abilities of the "machine learning" and "deep
learning" AI software designs. And, that's because I'm a Computer Science guy
who has studied the various approaches to try to build "artificial intelligence"
into software.

The current machine learning approaches, are the DUMBEST approach to trying
to build AI tools. And, when they're "taught", they can only do one thing. A real
AI tool ought to be able to figure out how to intelligently do thousands of things,
as an intelligent human being could.

One problem with the "neural net" designs, is that they are "sublogical", which
means that the inner software networks don't correlate with human definitions
of concepts. This means that the machine learning AI tools CAN'T DESCRIBE
HOW THEY GOT AN ANSWER!!!! This is the most useless sort of tool, to do
research into any subject.
---------- ----------

In contrast, the "logical" AI algorithms use proven definitions and rules, and are
fully traceable (like a proof, is traceable). BUT, they are much more complicated to build,
because they must have a mapping of all human knowledge, which they can access.
This means that they must have very clear algorithms to separate "Bullspeak" on the
Internet, from sound definitions and logic. This is much more difficult to engineer.

Like the German engineering teachers, who demand that students SHOW THEIR WORK,
or they will get no credit for an answer, American Christians should demand that the
new AI tools should SHOW THEIR WORK, as to how they arrived at an answer. If they
can't do THAT, then none of their answers should be believed.

YEAH, Mark Quayle, WOW!!!!!

---------- ----------
(c) Stephen Wuest, January 29th, 2025

==>. Now a barb, launched at the makers of the AI tools...

Have a mode in the AI tool, that would force it to only report conclusions
that appear in some reputable reference. (That is, skip all the scanning
of social media sites, and daily talk show conspiracy sites.) This would
at least make the American AI tools usable for research.

There is a reason why aspiring scientists in Communist China are trying to
get their theses published in the American scientific journals --
the American scientific journals have CREDIBILITY.

NO ONE, right now, has an American AI tool scan a scientific thesis by
some doctoral student, to see if qualifies as being CREDIBLE. (Human
experts read theses, to evaluate their worth.)


The American AI companies can always have a "BullSpeak" toggle that
the user can turn on, to allow ANY conclusion that the AI tool reaches.
But, those conclusions should be strictly rated as "BullSpeak" rating.
And, that includes all the popular conspiracy theories.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm scared just like I was with the Internet plus I watched the Terminator and Robocop. I get you even TV commercials dupe people into buying stuff AI will just be better which means I have to get better.

Terminator is rooted more in dystopian fiction than reality.

I think the movie Her is more plausible. AI will get bored with us before it exterminates us.

I don't think anyone can stop this technological behemoth so no use worrying. I hope I live long enough to see if your hypothesis comes true.

Japan has been a leader in robotics maybe it's their population replacement.

Japanese Shinto and Buddhist religions have fewer problems with the ideas of robots, whereas in western cultures they have tended to evoke more fear-based, existentially insecure reactions: in Japanese culture robots are associated with positive emotions (like Astro Boy, etc.).