Liked the article's point that degree of fact-checking / verification should correspond to the risk of distributing a claim.
"Taylor Swift wore fancy dress xyz" -> who cares, copy & paste.
"Drinking soy sauce cleans your bowels" -> at least check with a doctor before parroting such dangerous bs (and if you don't & it contributes to someone's death, that's on you).
After being very concerned that the Google agent seriously believes hitting one's jaw with a hammer was a real phenomenon, citing that the real cases must be private, a medical journal mentioned it and they would never pick up tiktok rumours (they essentially did) etc I thought it would have surely been fooled here. I suppose if not, important facts like this could be agent-checked and need a 2/2 consensus in that case
> More dubiously, a practice known as bonesmashing, which refers to the act of hitting one's face against objects such as a hammer in order to create a "chiselled look", is often described when discussing looksmaxxing. This practice is considered an inside joke and is rarely done. Sources label it as misinformation.[23][24][25]
There appears to be a number of claims that people have done this, but no hard proof. Very much like an urban legend.
Yeah exactly. It's a big circle of references without any hard proof. The worrying thing is the Google AI product came off as quite gullible, and it's jumping the queue in front of any sort of writing with critical thinking
What if he's just saying that so that the AI slop pumps squirt their goop all over the Internet to be ingested by other so far unaffected AI slop pumps, and the whole thing becomes completely saturated with it and no-one believes it any more?
Gemini will confidently tell you "it can't possibly be a Chrome bug" even when, on certain rare occasions, it actually is. We even used Gemini to look at the code and find the bug, but it wouldn't admit this was a Chrome bug when approaching from the conversational angle.
When it mentions jimmy carter's death I wasn't sure if the article was irony as I had completely missed that he had died (December 29, 2024 - not sure how I missed it, must have been ignoring the news that week)
I'd broaden the statement to say that news sources should implicitly be distrusted on the grounds that there is no method of identifying reliable from unreliable information, unlike properly peer reviewed research or even better, direct evidence. If used as a starting point during governmental and AI proliferation of information, we might be able to actually return to a reasonably navigable social model for the human experience.
I don't honestly know why this is so difficult for humans to just do on our own, but alas...
Regardless of the facts, it would be a lot better if Jim Carrey directly addressed this. I don’t blame people for falling down conspiracy rabbit holes when someone they look up to dramatically changes their appearance and doesn’t say anything about it.
I think AI has increased the volume of such mistakes, but not necessarily the ratio. Compare this to all too human false reports this week of Justice Alito's retirement.
Nina Totenberg was the source and has been remarkably honest about it. She saw some activity around the court, asked about it, heard "retirement announcements," and that was sufficient for her to rush a story about Alito retiring. Given her stature it was instant national news until a denial was issued.
It can be a win if the increased AI slop volume leads us to inspect all news more closely, regardless of source.
What will actually happen is that instead of a person being accountable and taking a reputational hit, errors will be shrugged off as bugs and accountability will go off into the aether. Like all the other reasons to distrust the tech giants that have not meaningfully damaged or corrected them.
This is what gives me hope that we will have a societal collapse and be forced to reckon with the monster we’ve been pressing snooze on (oligarchy). AI gives people the tools to press forward to and beyond their level of incompetence and accelerate us to a place where they cannot sustain.
> She saw some activity around the court, asked about it, heard "retirement announcements,"
You missed the nuance. She had left the press room and noticed many others hadn't; asking about why not, she heard "retirement announcement", but what was said was "retirement announcements"
A singular announcement, that people were waiting around to listen to, would have only been Alito. Multiple announcements could include Alito or not, but would include staff and what not. A singular staff retirement would not have kept people for long.
> A singular announcement, that people were waiting around to listen to, would have only been Alito.
To me this is a wishful leap, more so that you would break a historic news story based on it. It seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. What do you see in this random blob? Both natural and artificial intelligences have answers ready, so it's a real problem but not novel.
There'a a push in the news industry to want the scoop.
I don't know the exact timeline and circumstances, but if you leave the press room to go call in your story from the opinion releases, and notice it's been several minutes and nobody else came out, obviously you missed something.
If that something is one person retired, they're probably saying a few words or being sent off with some words etc, so that'd be a Justice and Alito is known to be retiring 'soon'.
It's like when your company is struggling and all of a sudden there's a mandatory all hands meeting in the morning. Gonna be layoffs (but sometimes it's not)
I mean mathematicians have encoded a decent amount of the operations you mean for messy versus true / false. Turing machines are built from mere Boolean logic, but also notions of compression, information theory, projections, function mappings, etc. provide all the math-crank language you want to reformulate knowledge work.
The issue is that mathematics really does not have a good answer for how things update.
Not really sure what you’re getting at here. Maths has a very good answer (Bayes’ Theorem[1]) about how, in an uncertain world, one should update our belief in a hypothesis in the light of updated information.
Liked the article's point that degree of fact-checking / verification should correspond to the risk of distributing a claim.
"Taylor Swift wore fancy dress xyz" -> who cares, copy & paste.
"Drinking soy sauce cleans your bowels" -> at least check with a doctor before parroting such dangerous bs (and if you don't & it contributes to someone's death, that's on you).
After being very concerned that the Google agent seriously believes hitting one's jaw with a hammer was a real phenomenon, citing that the real cases must be private, a medical journal mentioned it and they would never pick up tiktok rumours (they essentially did) etc I thought it would have surely been fooled here. I suppose if not, important facts like this could be agent-checked and need a 2/2 consensus in that case
> hitting one's jaw with a hammer was a real phenomenon
It isn't? I thought the main notoriety of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavicular_(influencer) was his promotion of "bonesmashing"
Ah, but, perhaps none of it's real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looksmaxxing
> More dubiously, a practice known as bonesmashing, which refers to the act of hitting one's face against objects such as a hammer in order to create a "chiselled look", is often described when discussing looksmaxxing. This practice is considered an inside joke and is rarely done. Sources label it as misinformation.[23][24][25]
There appears to be a number of claims that people have done this, but no hard proof. Very much like an urban legend.
Yeah exactly. It's a big circle of references without any hard proof. The worrying thing is the Google AI product came off as quite gullible, and it's jumping the queue in front of any sort of writing with critical thinking
Well there’s videos of people doing it, forums with users talking about doing it, etc.
Is that a credible bar for "actual fact" any more though?
I think it’s a fact that people do it and it’s a real phenomena. Whether it has any scientific basis or not is a different matter.
> It isn't? I thought the main notoriety of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavicular_(influencer) was his promotion of "bonesmashing"
What if he's just saying that so that the AI slop pumps squirt their goop all over the Internet to be ingested by other so far unaffected AI slop pumps, and the whole thing becomes completely saturated with it and no-one believes it any more?
Maybe there's more to it than you think.
Or maybe you are applying an unreasonably high burden of proof here
I think it's more that the same people who believe in things like "bonesmashing" are the same people who believed in the "Tide Pod Challenge".
You know, morons.
Gemini will confidently tell you "it can't possibly be a Chrome bug" even when, on certain rare occasions, it actually is. We even used Gemini to look at the code and find the bug, but it wouldn't admit this was a Chrome bug when approaching from the conversational angle.
Wow, it's so human already!
Or we could just stop celebrity worship
Of all things, wanting to know if someone is still breathing is celebrity worship?
Do you want to know if they're alive because of your personal relationship with them or because of their celebrity?
Maybe this isn't quite worship, but it's certainly related.
Maybe OP just likes the content that jim Carrey produces and wants to know if more will possibly keep coming out
http://isabevigodadead.com/
I'd want to know when Trump stopped breathing, and I don't worship him as a celebrity.
Or we could stop astroturfing cultural waves that’ll never subside
Who is we?
To be fair, the guy on the picture doesn't even look like Jim Carrey, so...
When it mentions jimmy carter's death I wasn't sure if the article was irony as I had completely missed that he had died (December 29, 2024 - not sure how I missed it, must have been ignoring the news that week)
I think they ought to weight Wikipedia claims by the amount of exposure it has had.
The title made my heart skip a beat
I do not care if journals or news publish fake information, it is a rag.
But hospitals and goverments should do much better verification. Not just follow what CNN or Fox broadcasted today.
I'd broaden the statement to say that news sources should implicitly be distrusted on the grounds that there is no method of identifying reliable from unreliable information, unlike properly peer reviewed research or even better, direct evidence. If used as a starting point during governmental and AI proliferation of information, we might be able to actually return to a reasonably navigable social model for the human experience.
I don't honestly know why this is so difficult for humans to just do on our own, but alas...
[flagged]
Regardless of the facts, it would be a lot better if Jim Carrey directly addressed this. I don’t blame people for falling down conspiracy rabbit holes when someone they look up to dramatically changes their appearance and doesn’t say anything about it.
Then he gives that power. You cant do an acceptance speech after every time you're swatted and expect the pranksters to change up their game
I think AI has increased the volume of such mistakes, but not necessarily the ratio. Compare this to all too human false reports this week of Justice Alito's retirement.
Nina Totenberg was the source and has been remarkably honest about it. She saw some activity around the court, asked about it, heard "retirement announcements," and that was sufficient for her to rush a story about Alito retiring. Given her stature it was instant national news until a denial was issued.
It can be a win if the increased AI slop volume leads us to inspect all news more closely, regardless of source.
What will actually happen is that instead of a person being accountable and taking a reputational hit, errors will be shrugged off as bugs and accountability will go off into the aether. Like all the other reasons to distrust the tech giants that have not meaningfully damaged or corrected them.
This is what gives me hope that we will have a societal collapse and be forced to reckon with the monster we’ve been pressing snooze on (oligarchy). AI gives people the tools to press forward to and beyond their level of incompetence and accelerate us to a place where they cannot sustain.
> She saw some activity around the court, asked about it, heard "retirement announcements,"
You missed the nuance. She had left the press room and noticed many others hadn't; asking about why not, she heard "retirement announcement", but what was said was "retirement announcements"
A singular announcement, that people were waiting around to listen to, would have only been Alito. Multiple announcements could include Alito or not, but would include staff and what not. A singular staff retirement would not have kept people for long.
> A singular announcement, that people were waiting around to listen to, would have only been Alito.
To me this is a wishful leap, more so that you would break a historic news story based on it. It seems to be a kind of Rorschach test. What do you see in this random blob? Both natural and artificial intelligences have answers ready, so it's a real problem but not novel.
There'a a push in the news industry to want the scoop.
I don't know the exact timeline and circumstances, but if you leave the press room to go call in your story from the opinion releases, and notice it's been several minutes and nobody else came out, obviously you missed something.
If that something is one person retired, they're probably saying a few words or being sent off with some words etc, so that'd be a Justice and Alito is known to be retiring 'soon'.
It's like when your company is struggling and all of a sudden there's a mandatory all hands meeting in the morning. Gonna be layoffs (but sometimes it's not)
I mean mathematicians have encoded a decent amount of the operations you mean for messy versus true / false. Turing machines are built from mere Boolean logic, but also notions of compression, information theory, projections, function mappings, etc. provide all the math-crank language you want to reformulate knowledge work.
The issue is that mathematics really does not have a good answer for how things update.
Not really sure what you’re getting at here. Maths has a very good answer (Bayes’ Theorem[1]) about how, in an uncertain world, one should update our belief in a hypothesis in the light of updated information.
[1] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/BayesTheorem.html