“Meanwhile, fill up academic journals with studies that can’t be replicated, because they were written to advance careers and please grant-givers, not promote the truth.”
They already are. We didn’t need AI for that.
I agree with you, I think the central point Ted is making is true, but there’s missing nuance and understanding of the information field and some sensationalism in his proclamations. I also think he’s discounting a lot of distrust that people have about AI: I’ve been casually asking my students, presumably a demographic quick to jump onto things like ChatGPT and they’ve barely heard of it. Nor do they want to use it, they don’t see the point and they’re not interested. I’ve been exploring AI in the context of my own work and honestly? It’s still pretty useless.
I do agree with you that maybe his writing is a bit alarmist ... to you and me. But believe me, I've seen people fooled by fake information. I'll give you this example. Last year, I was living in Penang for a few months. I had dinner with some folks who lived at the same block. One of them was an elderly lady who was convinced that the current Malaysian government was conspiring to kill all Indians ... through Covid vaccinations. She showed me a video of someone impersonating a politician - he was clearly a fake to me, but I can see how he could be mistaken for the real deal. Despite my friend and I trying to tell her that no, that information was absolutely false and that guy was a fake, she didn't believe us and told us we will see that she was right in a few months.
Well, as far as I know, genocide has not happened.
The Rohingya genoicide happened because of fake news. Don't underestimate the power of lies, especially in countries where critical thinking is not as well developed, or where people are unfamiliar with technology.
The world is filled with too many gullible people - not only must we battle this shitstorm flood of bad information, we have to contend with the actions of these folks.
I'm usually uncomfortable with people who use rhetoric or hyperbole to help make their point but I admit it can be effective and I don't disagree with his main message: there's a lot of shifty info out there and some people both encourage and profit from it.
My stock line to people is: you can't "watch" the news. There are plenty of excellent news sources available (Economist, FT, NYer, Bloomberg, etc.) but they're expensive, and reading is hard. But many of the problems he states are decades if not centuries old.
On net, I think most things are cyclical, and many people are backlashing against the internet disinformation economy. We shall see.
I like that this has sparked an interesting discussion. We are surely at a crossroads in terms of the way we figure things out, and finding trustworthy and objective information is actually harder for the average person... but I think it's easier for the smarter-than-average person who is also plugged in, and who is educated on how to discern quality news sources.
If you think like a scientist, you're all set, and this is a golden age... but on the down side, you have a hard time understanding why the rest of the world doesn't also get this benefit. Instead, they seem to be becoming dumber, voting against their own (very obvious) self interest, and so on.
Individual responsibility in discerning reliable sources (or unreliable ones, more to the point) is a key, but I'm not confident that simply putting this power into the hands of the individual will be enough to stop the potentially catastrophic bad actors out there from manipulating the less-likely-to-think-critically among us.
“Meanwhile, fill up academic journals with studies that can’t be replicated, because they were written to advance careers and please grant-givers, not promote the truth.”
They already are. We didn’t need AI for that.
I agree with you, I think the central point Ted is making is true, but there’s missing nuance and understanding of the information field and some sensationalism in his proclamations. I also think he’s discounting a lot of distrust that people have about AI: I’ve been casually asking my students, presumably a demographic quick to jump onto things like ChatGPT and they’ve barely heard of it. Nor do they want to use it, they don’t see the point and they’re not interested. I’ve been exploring AI in the context of my own work and honestly? It’s still pretty useless.
Glad to hear your perspective as a medical librarian!
I do agree with you that maybe his writing is a bit alarmist ... to you and me. But believe me, I've seen people fooled by fake information. I'll give you this example. Last year, I was living in Penang for a few months. I had dinner with some folks who lived at the same block. One of them was an elderly lady who was convinced that the current Malaysian government was conspiring to kill all Indians ... through Covid vaccinations. She showed me a video of someone impersonating a politician - he was clearly a fake to me, but I can see how he could be mistaken for the real deal. Despite my friend and I trying to tell her that no, that information was absolutely false and that guy was a fake, she didn't believe us and told us we will see that she was right in a few months.
Well, as far as I know, genocide has not happened.
The Rohingya genoicide happened because of fake news. Don't underestimate the power of lies, especially in countries where critical thinking is not as well developed, or where people are unfamiliar with technology.
The world is filled with too many gullible people - not only must we battle this shitstorm flood of bad information, we have to contend with the actions of these folks.
Perhaps he needs to be an alarmist to be heard?
I'm usually uncomfortable with people who use rhetoric or hyperbole to help make their point but I admit it can be effective and I don't disagree with his main message: there's a lot of shifty info out there and some people both encourage and profit from it.
My stock line to people is: you can't "watch" the news. There are plenty of excellent news sources available (Economist, FT, NYer, Bloomberg, etc.) but they're expensive, and reading is hard. But many of the problems he states are decades if not centuries old.
On net, I think most things are cyclical, and many people are backlashing against the internet disinformation economy. We shall see.
Indeed.
I like that this has sparked an interesting discussion. We are surely at a crossroads in terms of the way we figure things out, and finding trustworthy and objective information is actually harder for the average person... but I think it's easier for the smarter-than-average person who is also plugged in, and who is educated on how to discern quality news sources.
If you think like a scientist, you're all set, and this is a golden age... but on the down side, you have a hard time understanding why the rest of the world doesn't also get this benefit. Instead, they seem to be becoming dumber, voting against their own (very obvious) self interest, and so on.
Individual responsibility in discerning reliable sources (or unreliable ones, more to the point) is a key, but I'm not confident that simply putting this power into the hands of the individual will be enough to stop the potentially catastrophic bad actors out there from manipulating the less-likely-to-think-critically among us.
Fair points.
This was such a thorough and thoughtful examination of Ted’s essay. And I think you (and Ted) make some great points.
Thanks
Thanks