|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 16 2016 05:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:43 LegalLord wrote:On August 16 2016 05:37 zlefin wrote:
Mush, you don't seem too familiar with how learning ais work; and the capabilities of adaptation that exist.
They most certainly can come up with things (though depending on your definition of that you could argue otherwise)
And they're not very simple, they're hideously complex.
or maybe you're just using a really weird and irregular definition. They can learn, but only according to pre-specified criteria and pre-specified methods of learning. They don't have general intelligence and cannot, broadly speaking, do something they aren't programmed to do. i'm very well aware of that; and I don't see how it contradicts my points which were objections to the specifics of what mush said.
Well it is the point I think he is trying to make. In a broad sense he is right that computers, even learning computers, can only act according to their programming. Unless you could specify some logic for being biased or not, news or not, and true or not, we reach a dead end.
|
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
|
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either.
|
On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either.
The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do.
|
Plus there's still the problem of computer programming being this mystical process that's incomprehensible to 95%+ of the population. Like Plansix said, you'd still never get the public on board. Especially with the current undercurrent of mistrust of "experts", the programmers developing the unbiased media AI would just be another group of "experts" being manipulated by the political establishment.
|
United States43582 Posts
On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news.
"A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning"
is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right?
Whereas
"Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities"
includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture.
I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response far better than I can with my shitty examples.
|
On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do.
nothing; at least nothing he's capable of. He'd have to shape up and be smarter and wiser than he is.
|
On August 16 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 03:43 Godwrath wrote:On August 16 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:
I wouldn't mind a government news channel being made, and in general I think a direct government mouthpiece is a good thing. Most Americans would lose their shit if one was to be proposed though. Hmm, probably is my country bias talking here, but i don't think news channels tied to the goverment are a good idea. They will end up being as propaganda tool for the ruling party. To be perfectly honest, if the nation that sent people to the moon can’t create a publicly run news network that can survive more than one administration, we might as well just quit right now and go back to being ruled by the UK. The BBC is fine. But they also have 50 years of public trust built up behind them. Seriously, think about that. If we can’t trust our government to build an independent entity that sole purpose is to keep the public informed, why do we trust them with anything? We entrust them with the power of lethal force, but not the power to provide information to the public.
I find your belief in "government" as some magnanimous omnipowerful entity mind blowing. In the total opposite with myself, as I believe it is an organized entity with the monopoly of force to simply serve itself and it's members, trough cohersion. Shows why I'm close to libertarian and you belong to the left, as I honestly believe government entities are all incompetent (relative to their private counter parts) or just flat out evil and thirsty of power.
Just wanted to point that out.
|
On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do.
I don't think he can. He has done to much and said to many stupid things at this point.
There was perhaps a point during the primary when he clinched it where he could have said "I was just joking here is my real stance" but that ship has long since sailed. He cannot walk back all the dumb shit.
This isn't a situation where voters are flip flopping between 2 candidates based on policies and impressions. Those who leave Trump tend to do so with a 'this has gone to far' conviction and those already on the other side are generally repulsed by his statements.
|
On August 16 2016 05:45 RoomOfMush wrote:(...) Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:40 Evotroid wrote:
Also, easiest example: completely simulate a human brain with computer, do you accept that a human brain can learn on it's own? bam then a computer can as well. But nobody ever managed to simulate a human brain. We dont even know how human brains work. We dont know if human brains are deterministic or not. Our computers are. If brains are not then our computer can not simulate brains.
Again, that we haven't did it yet, does not mean we can not do it at all. Secondly, we know how brains work on the small scale, we just don't understand all the intricaties arising from the complex whole, but that does not mean we can't simulate it. Again, it may be true what you say, but it does not follow from that, that we can't simulate one, or that we can't make programs, that learn on their own. But feel free to produce a counter source/paper, that shows to that effect.
Finally, our computers are not deterministic. Seriously. We would like them to be, we build them to be, and we use them as they were, but they are not. In fact, on average something like 1% of the clients failed a simple test built into Guild Wars (iirc) that tested the cpu for deterministic errors. They just fail. There is nothing stopping us to make intentionally indeterministic hardware or even just pseudo random generators, that in practice produce the desired effect.
|
On August 16 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news. "A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning" is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right? Whereas "Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities" includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture. I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response.
Language cannot be defined in a way specific enough to computers that you can use it that way. And what about stories that are lies?
Is the statement "US bombers destroy terror cell in Aleppo" a biased statement? What if it's debated whether a group is a terrorist organization in the first place, such as the Kurds? What if it didn't actually happen?
|
news are never 100% objective and thats all right..
facts are objective, but pure facts don't do much for you on their own and whiteout interpretation aren't news.
There are plenty of factual statements that we, for damn good reasons, chose to not take into account/not follow up on.
|
United States43582 Posts
On August 16 2016 06:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news. "A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning" is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right? Whereas "Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities" includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture. I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response. Language cannot be defined in a way specific enough to computers that you can use it that way. And what about stories that are lies? Is the statement "US bombers destroy terror cell in Aleppo" a biased statement? What if it's debated whether a group is a terrorist organization in the first place, such as the Kurds?
I'd argue yes. You could go with US bombers destroy a group defined as a terror cell by the US government, in Aleppo.
As for stories that are lies, check for multiple sources. If all the sources are lying already you'd have no way of knowing, I don't know why you'd hold an AI to a higher standard than could be conceivably applied elsewhere. But given the way that an AI can cluster metadata it could probably verify shit pretty fucking well. A cluster of phone calls, a regional market shift etc could be physical direct feedback that something has happened in a location. I'm just making it up as I go here though but with enough data to work with an AI could tell the difference between events that happened and events that you made up.
|
On August 16 2016 05:58 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2016 03:43 Godwrath wrote:On August 16 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:
I wouldn't mind a government news channel being made, and in general I think a direct government mouthpiece is a good thing. Most Americans would lose their shit if one was to be proposed though. Hmm, probably is my country bias talking here, but i don't think news channels tied to the goverment are a good idea. They will end up being as propaganda tool for the ruling party. To be perfectly honest, if the nation that sent people to the moon can’t create a publicly run news network that can survive more than one administration, we might as well just quit right now and go back to being ruled by the UK. The BBC is fine. But they also have 50 years of public trust built up behind them. Seriously, think about that. If we can’t trust our government to build an independent entity that sole purpose is to keep the public informed, why do we trust them with anything? We entrust them with the power of lethal force, but not the power to provide information to the public. I find your belief in "government" as some magnanimous omnipowerful entity mind blowing. In the total opposite with myself, as I believe it is an organized entity with the monopoly of force to simply serve itself and it's members, trough cohersion. Shows why I'm close to libertarian and you belong to the left, as I honestly believe government entities are all incompetent (relative to their private counter parts) or just flat out evil and thirsty of power. Just wanted to point that out.
Well cynicism is the refuge of those afraid to put their faith in something because they could be let down. The libertarian is simply a cynic who only believes in themselves and claims to believe in others.
And a Republican you block on Facebook because they keep commenting on your posts. Really, libertarians are the vegans of the political world. I don't mind they exist, but holy fuck I don't care.
|
On August 16 2016 06:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news. "A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning" is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right? Whereas "Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities" includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture. I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response. Language cannot be defined in a way specific enough to computers that you can use it that way. And what about stories that are lies? Is the statement "US bombers destroy terror cell in Aleppo" a biased statement? What if it's debated whether a group is a terrorist organization in the first place, such as the Kurds? What if it didn't actually happen?
Yes, because a terrorist is not an objective description (one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist and all that).
"US bombers kill 13 in Aleppo bombing, US official claims terrorist connections, ISIS denies" is a much less biased statement.
|
On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do.
There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win.
|
On August 16 2016 06:00 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:45 RoomOfMush wrote:(...) On August 16 2016 05:40 Evotroid wrote:
Also, easiest example: completely simulate a human brain with computer, do you accept that a human brain can learn on it's own? bam then a computer can as well. But nobody ever managed to simulate a human brain. We dont even know how human brains work. We dont know if human brains are deterministic or not. Our computers are. If brains are not then our computer can not simulate brains. Again, that we haven't did it yet, does not mean we can not do it at all. Secondly, we know how brains work on the small scale, we just don't understand all the intricaties arising from the complex whole, but that does not mean we can't simulate it. Again, it may be true what you say, but it does not follow from that, that we can't simulate one, or that we can't make programs, that learn on their own. But feel free to produce a counter source/paper, that shows to that effect. Finally, our computers are not deterministic. Seriously. We would like them to be, we build them to be, and we use them as they were, but they are not. In fact, on average something like 1% of the clients failed a simple test built into Guild Wars (iirc) that tested the cpu for deterministic errors. They just fail. There is nothing stopping us to make intentionally indeterministic hardware or even just pseudo random generators, that in practice produce the desired effect.
No. Our computers are fully deterministic. If you say otherwise then you either dont understand what determinism means or you dont understand how computers work. There are "some aspects" of computers which we dont know whether they are deterministic or not because of limited knowledge of physics. For example: What effects does radiation or magnetism have on computer hardware? And are these effects deterministic? We dont know that.
But apart from that computers are completely deterministic. They are just very very complex and difficult to understand. This is not because they are not deterministic, it is because we are too stupid to comprehend all the information that is needed to predict their behavior.
And I never said its impossible to simulate the human brain. I say we can not simulate a non-deterministic system with deterministic devices. We know computers are deterministic but we dont know whether brains are.
On August 16 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news. "A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning" is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right? Whereas "Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities" includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture. I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response far better than I can with my shitty examples.
But that is really really hard and needs to be known to the programmer in order to teach it to the computer. And then, in the future, somebody will find ways to trick the computer because they reverse-engineered the algorithm behind it and abuse cases the programmer did not think of.
Look at what google scholar does with scientific research papers. Thats more or less a simplified version of a news AI. It grades scientific papers for their "value" based on certain easily identifiable characteristics. It works for the most part but there are people who abuse its weaknesses.
|
On August 16 2016 06:07 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 16 2016 05:52 zlefin wrote:
So, from what I read of trump's speech today; it seemed rather bland and unremarkable. not as crazy as his usual stuff, but nothing notably helpful either. The question no one seems able to answer is: What is something Trump can say that will help him? What can he do that pulls him out of the ditch? He seems totally trapped and doesn't appear to really have anything he can do. There are people who in no universe will ever conceive of voting for him, but that's not who he has to go after to win.
Could someone who was going to vote for Trump but considered the Khan comments to be unfit of a president be convinced to switch back to Trump?
I would find it hard to believe anything Trump says could appease those sort of people. And they are the people he needs to win back.
|
On August 16 2016 06:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:01 LegalLord wrote:On August 16 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news. "A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning" is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right? Whereas "Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities" includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture. I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response. Language cannot be defined in a way specific enough to computers that you can use it that way. And what about stories that are lies? Is the statement "US bombers destroy terror cell in Aleppo" a biased statement? What if it's debated whether a group is a terrorist organization in the first place, such as the Kurds? I'd argue yes. You could go with US bombers destroy a group defined as a terror cell by the US government, in Aleppo. As for stories that are lies, check for multiple sources. If all the sources are lying already you'd have no way of knowing, I don't know why you'd hold an AI to a higher standard than could be conceivably applied elsewhere. But given the way that an AI can cluster metadata it could probably verify shit pretty fucking well. A cluster of phone calls, a regional market shift etc could be physical direct feedback that something has happened in a location. I'm just making it up as I go here though but with enough data to work with an AI could tell the difference between events that happened and events that you made up.
Congratulations, by your first sentence you have already introduced political bias into your AI. If it follows government directives then the Armenian Genocide never happened as well.
Multiple sources can repeat the same lie, easily. Especially real time sources like Twatter. Not to mention how you could abuse that system to make up lies if you figure out how the system crawls. Look at "search engine optimization" being an actual field to see that AIs can be manipulated to do what a third party wants it to do.
On August 16 2016 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:01 LegalLord wrote:On August 16 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news. "A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning" is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right? Whereas "Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities" includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture. I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response. Language cannot be defined in a way specific enough to computers that you can use it that way. And what about stories that are lies? Is the statement "US bombers destroy terror cell in Aleppo" a biased statement? What if it's debated whether a group is a terrorist organization in the first place, such as the Kurds? What if it didn't actually happen? Yes, because a terrorist is not an objective description (one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist and all that). "US bombers kill 13 in Aleppo bombing, US official claims terrorist connections, ISIS denies" is a much less biased statement.
Then you will have a hell of a hard time assigning any label to anything.
"US claims it is a nation, ISIS denies."
|
On August 16 2016 06:09 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 06:00 Evotroid wrote:On August 16 2016 05:45 RoomOfMush wrote:(...) On August 16 2016 05:40 Evotroid wrote:
Also, easiest example: completely simulate a human brain with computer, do you accept that a human brain can learn on it's own? bam then a computer can as well. But nobody ever managed to simulate a human brain. We dont even know how human brains work. We dont know if human brains are deterministic or not. Our computers are. If brains are not then our computer can not simulate brains. Again, that we haven't did it yet, does not mean we can not do it at all. Secondly, we know how brains work on the small scale, we just don't understand all the intricaties arising from the complex whole, but that does not mean we can't simulate it. Again, it may be true what you say, but it does not follow from that, that we can't simulate one, or that we can't make programs, that learn on their own. But feel free to produce a counter source/paper, that shows to that effect. Finally, our computers are not deterministic. Seriously. We would like them to be, we build them to be, and we use them as they were, but they are not. In fact, on average something like 1% of the clients failed a simple test built into Guild Wars (iirc) that tested the cpu for deterministic errors. They just fail. There is nothing stopping us to make intentionally indeterministic hardware or even just pseudo random generators, that in practice produce the desired effect. No. Our computers are fully deterministic. If you say otherwise then you either dont understand what determinism means or you dont understand how computers work. There are "some aspects" of computers which we dont know whether they are deterministic or not because of limited knowledge of physics. For example: What effects does radiation or magnetism have on computer hardware? And are these effects deterministic? We dont know that. But apart from that computers are completely deterministic. They are just very very complex and difficult to understand. This is not because they are not deterministic, it is because we are too stupid to comprehend all the information that is needed to predict their behavior. And I never said its impossible to simulate the human brain. I say we can not simulate a non-deterministic system with deterministic devices. We know computers are deterministic but we dont know whether brains are. Show nested quote +On August 16 2016 05:56 KwarK wrote:On August 16 2016 05:49 Plansix wrote:
Humans can’t even agree on what objectivity is. We cannot obtain objectivity on our own within the complexity of our own mind. There is no way we can create an AI do to it for us. We will just create a thing that believes it is devoid of bias and therefore objective.
And frankly we have enough of those on the internet already, committing of video game subreddits.
We don't need every single person to agree to understand what would make news good news. "A car bomb killed 64 people in a market in Baghdad at 07:14 local time this morning" is a fairly simple statement of what happened, right? Whereas "Cowardly terrorists murdered dozens of innocent civilians in the latest attack in this spree of similar atrocities" includes slanted and subjective language, misuses legal terminology, sacrifices accuracy for vague hyperbole and expands upon the basic facts of the event to paint a broader picture. I'm sure a journalism or communications major here can tell us how language can be constructed to evoke a specific response far better than I can with my shitty examples. But that is really really hard and needs to be known to the programmer in order to teach it to the computer. And then, in the future, somebody will find ways to trick the computer because they reverse-engineered the algorithm behind it and abuse cases the programmer did not think of. Look at what google scholar does with scientific research papers. Thats more or less a simplified version of a news AI. It grades scientific papers for their "value" based on certain easily identifiable characteristics. It works for the most part but there are people who abuse its weaknesses.
Okay, here is a test: you give a simple problem to your subjects multiple times, like: "1+1=?".
Subject A gives you the answer, without fail, 10 000 times in a row as "2"
Subject B however a few times out of 10 000 gave you other answers, like "3" to the same problem, with no apparent pattern, utterly unpredictable.
Which of the subjects would you classify as deterministic, and which would you not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
