Discussion AI and the manipulation of facts.

[Forever Sleep]

Has anyone else noticed that for a good few months, searches on Google have come up with things that were categorically wrong? A couple of examples were- I asked Google to find a quote from a TV series. My friend pointed out, I'd quoted it wrongly (because Google did...)

During a theological discussion, I also asked Google which religious texts were considered to be the hand of (or, written by God.) I remembered that the Quran had closer links to the prophet Muhammed but, I thought there might be others. But, Google came up with the Christian bible- which I'm pretty sure was written decades afterJesus died. Maybe it meant the Old Testament but still- I don't think either are attributed to a prophet or God directly.

It makes me wonder in general though. How is AI fact checking? Presumably, it's scanning multiple sources to find a consensus. Presumably, it also 'knows' that some sources are more reliable than others.

Doesn't it make you wonder though? If a certain thing is documented many millions of times over, will it start to present it as fact? We could probably convince AI that unicorns were real if there were enough seemingly factual reports of them.

I just wonder as a species- seeing how lazy a lot of us are (me included,) what this will mean for history and fact. It also makes me feel kind of sorry for academics who rely on computers. How can they truly know what's real now? I guess it's always been an issue but, I imagine it's so much harder now. How do you fact check the internet?

 

[telemark05]

Has anyone else noticed that for a good few months, searches on Google have come up with things that were categorically wrong? A couple of examples were- I asked Google to find a quote from a TV series. My friend pointed out, I'd quoted it wrongly (because Google did...)

During a theological discussion, I also asked Google which religious texts were considered to be the hand of (or, written by God.) I remembered that the Quran had closer links to the prophet Muhammed but, I thought there might be others. But, Google came up with the Christian bible- which I'm pretty sure was written decades afterJesus died. Maybe it meant the Old Testament but still- I don't think either are attributed to a prophet or God directly.

It makes me wonder in general though. How is AI fact checking? Presumably, it's scanning multiple sources to find a consensus. Presumably, it also 'knows' that some sources are more reliable than others.

Doesn't it make you wonder though? If a certain thing is documented many millions of times over, will it start to present it as fact? We could probably convince AI that unicorns were real if there were enough seemingly factual reports of them.

I just wonder as a species- seeing how lazy a lot of us are (me included,) what this will mean for history and fact. It also makes me feel kind of sorry for academics who rely on computers. How can they truly know what's real now? I guess it's always been an issue but, I imagine it's so much harder now. How do you fact check the internet?

Me and another person looked up a question about Nikola Tesla's views on the universe, and we got totally opposite answers. It's very biased.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Agon321]

Google AI shows me incorrect information relatively often. This is not surprising, because current AI is simply a combine harvester that devours data and spits out information that may have little to do with the truth.
Even before the era of AI fakes, there was a lot of incorrect information on the internet, so now it will only get worse, especially since AI, among other things, consumes incorrect information.

AI is a tool like any other, and a tool can be used for "good" and "bad" purposes.

 

[Skallagrim]

Here. It's so much fun.

 

[Hvergelmir]

How is AI fact checking?

Normal LLMs would fact check by learning what "truth" usually look like.
Not that differently from a human, checking several sources, and comparing those to other known truths and lies. If most sources agree, and they present the fact in a way that is similar to trustworthy sources, it's probably true.

If a certain thing is documented many millions of times over, will it start to present it as fact?

Probably, and so does human journalists and the like.
It's a common problem that sources reference each other, forming a self referential web without primary source.