h a l f b a k e r yLeft for Bread
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Judging by the inability of the public (both the general public, and the specific public supposedly in charge of newsworthiness) to tell the difference between news and 'fake news', we should let IBM's Watson AI automagically filter the news through a dark lens, producing any current rag, newspaper,
magazine or news broadcast at a fraction of the cost.
Creating 'fake news' with a consistent inconsistent algorithm would have the intended 'unintended' consequence that actual people begin to recognize real (factual, pertinent, balanced, fair) news at a glance since it does NOT conform to the 'fake news' algorithm.
You know how you 'just know' things sometimes, as in 'gut instinct'? Your gut and brain are not aware of the lightning-speed communication that allows you to 'just know'. Watson's obfuscations would be so weirdly regularly irregular that the vagus nerve could instantly seize upon the 'real' news.
Note: Much of the 'real news' concerns actions of people who are good, kind, selfless, generous, smart and joyful. This 'news' appears not to be treated as news by most news outlets, as 'no news is good news' seems to be repeatedly interpreted as 'good news is not news'. Since good news stories rarely include bleeding (except perhaps in the case of beneficiaries of Good Samaritan's actions), the view of news as 'if it bleeds, it leads' will automatically mean that these stories are virtually unchanged... unless we tell Watson that 'good news is news', which would turn the entire industry inside out.
Additional unintended consequences may include:
inability to stand in line at checkouts where periodicals are displayed; sudden outbursts of sardonic and/or derisive laughter; news outlet stock prices plummeting; sudden worldwide realization that people are generally fairly peaceful and groovy.
This site specializes in fake news
http://www.theonion.com/
Perhaps we could get the folks at that site to help train Watson. [Vernon, Apr 04 2017]
[link]
|
| |
Isn't there a difference between balancing good and bad news, ...and detecting lies and stories created just to fill the space? |
|
| |
What is it you want the robot to do? |
|
| |
Just email the whitehouse for a comment on anything to
determine if it's fake news or a reliable fact. If The Retard
or any of his single brain celled advisors say that the item is
fake, then you know with certainty that it's genuine, and of
course vice-versa. |
|
| |
// actions of people who are good, kind, selfless, generous, smart
and joyful. // |
|
| |
What planet do these "people" live on, exactly ? |
|
| |
^ Earth. We've just been suppressed. |
|
| |
//this site specialises in fake news// cf this sentence is a
lie |
|
| |
The mistake starts from the fundamental assertion, oft
used by politicians, that you are entitled to your own
opinion, but not your own facts. |
|
| |
This view of reality is at demonstrated odds with both
relativity and the uncertainty principle, leading to the
inevitable conclusion that every observer of reality
operates on their own set of facts. |
|
| |
Thus this is a futile struggle, with the odds of actually
convincing nonbelievers being fairly miniscule, leaving
only two options: 1. Coerce nonbelievers or 2.
Don't coerce nonbelievers. |
|
| |
You are indeed entitled to your own facts. What you're not
entitled to is to force your facts upon others. |
|
| |
That this makes government more difficult or perhaps
impossible is actually designed into our system (the US
System): that's why libertarianism if not outright
anarchism always ran strong in our country. |
|
| |