Exodus 23:1"Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness."
So where does this leave you if are Christian of faith I wonder?
Trolling or reposting rhubarb conspiracy theory looks a bit suspect surely?
.

Timothy 4:2 - Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

remery said..
Timothy 4:2 - Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

Even warring scriptures will not help you when the other side chooses to ignore things you say.

OK so on a tangent my Maths teacher would be proud to see, I was thinking about happy chappy G Orwell and what he would make of AI. Already when I type a question into DuckDuckGo search engine, I can choose results that are AI-generated answers sourced from the open web. The problem being some of the answers are based on disinformation and misinformation that permeates every corner. Most of the time I can pick the BS, but I wonder how will future generations cope separating the wheat from the chaff. Should critical thinking be a something that is instilled in primary school, or do we just sit and hope the AI will develop better algorithms?

Most homo sapiens for millenia have been more than happy to accept magic and superstition as solutions for their existence and the grind of the universe around them. When this world view is challenged with new/oppositional information, more often than not it is actively suppressed by the powerful and their henchmen. I doubt any form of ai will change the mantras of the willfully ignorant. Ai will more than likely be manipulated to shoot down dissenting voices through the easily swayed court of the public opinion. Kinda same old, same old with new tools.

fangman said..
OK so on a tangent my Maths teacher would be proud to see, I was thinking about happy chappy G Orwell and what he would make of AI. Already when I type a question into DuckDuckGo search engine, I can choose results that are AI-generated answers sourced from the open web. The problem being some of the answers are based on disinformation and misinformation that permeates every corner. Most of the time I can pick the BS, but I wonder how will future generations cope separating the wheat from the chaff. Should critical thinking be a something that is instilled in primary school, or do we just sit and hope the AI will develop better algorithms?

When I grew up, school assignments were based on encylopedia articles or other magazine articles.

Now, with so much random information on the internet, I do wonder if kids are being taught to filter and qualify information, or god-forbid, some of the teachers themselves don't even do this and the students therefore don't learn to?

Worse, in that books are definitely going out of style, so is 'common' information likely to die out and only be available in some dark corner of the web and therefore exposed to misinformation? Are we as a civilization going to die out with only electronic records left, i.e. nothing, and someone in the future will wonder where all our knowledge went?

It's already happening. There are ai programs being shut down/rebooted/consolidated because they start producing gibberish based on the ever diminishing quality of input as the net of enquiry grows and entropy kicks in. Presently human supervision is mandatory as the field is in its relative infancy. Also consider the case of two super computers being shut down because they started conversing in language we did not understand.
It's a brave new world folks.

Brent in Qld said..
Also consider the case of two super computers being shut down because they started conversing in language we did not understand....

Well that has piqued my interest, but as usual I have food coma and feeling a bit lazy...can you post a link for me pls?

fangman said..

Brent in Qld said..
Also consider the case of two super computers being shut down because they started conversing in language we did not understand....

Well that has piqued my interest, but as usual I have food coma and feeling a bit lazy...can you post a link for me pls?

There are further discussions about the back and forth noise between the bots if you want to dig. Either way, interesting and eerie...

Excerpt from the link below.

It became apparent that, far from having been forced to shut Bob and Alice (the computers mentioned) down in a fearful panic, FAIR ended the experiment because-despite it yielding some valuable results in the area of machine learning-the bots' habit of drifting away from understandable language into a coded form of utterance meant that they had limited usefulness for the ultimate purpose for which they were being developed.

www.leoalmanac.org/what-are-bob-and-alice-saying-miscommunication-and-intermediation-between-language-and-code-hannah-lammin/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20it%20becomes%20apparent%20that,form%20of%20utterance%20meant%20that

decrepit said..
And of course, you've researched the source for those ticks and crosses.
It wouldn't be a CT by any chance?

BTW that's what we mean by critical thinking

Do you think there's another list that lists all the other crackpot theories created that turned out to be completely off-base? I doubt it. I think these guys get their jollies by coming up with lame theory after theory and when one is actually correct, it pays off so much it replenishes them for the next decade.

Actually thinking about it, whoever created that masterpiece seems to have toned it down. 'mRNA vaccine harm'? I thought it was more like they were trying to tell us all that the vaccine was going to kill us all, not just that there would be harm to some unlucky people.

Any grammar experts here? I am not even sure they used 'whom' correctly, but am willing to learn something.

decrepit said..
And of course, you've researched the source for those ticks and crosses.
It wouldn't be a CT by any chance?

BTW that's what we mean by critical thinking

It's another masterclass in ironic posting is my guess.
Sledging journos but then creating a grammar car crash in just one short sentence. ( i.e. it's who, not whom, and 'correct and right' is a tautology.)
I would give it a rating of 3 stars, purely because it gave my internal grammar pedant something to do.
lol

Edit: just saw your post FN, and yes you are correct on the grammar question.

Pcdefender said..

"Masks useless". You will be interested to know that I contacted antivaxxer heroine, Kerryn Phelps. While she remains concerned about vaccine harm, she is very supportive of masks.

decrepit said..
And of course, you've researched the source for those ticks and crosses.
It wouldn't be a CT by any chance?

BTW that's what we mean by critical thinking

Doesn't it raise any alarms in you when ct nutters are actually correct.

You don't need a peer reviewed article to know that social media is censored or russiagate was a hoax.

If you do need an academic or some other main stream verified source to tell you what to think than you might be struggling with the concept of critical thinking.

The ct nutters are actually getting some stuff right. A person capable of critical thinking would listen and weigh up their arguments and evidence. A sheeple would would dismiss them and follow the narrative.

cammd said..
You don't need a peer reviewed article to know that social media is censored or russiagate was a hoax.

However a placard with ticks and crosses on it is meaningless, anybody could have done that.

Yes, I know there are conspiracies, and the nutters may just get one correct.
But I'm afraid I just ignore anything from PC