Selection for Societal Sanity

[Cognisant]

The video discusses a theory explained by the villain of MGS2 regarding how freedom of speech is resulting in the degradation of information.

Link to Youtube video: Selection for Societal Sanity

I don't think this is a new phenomenon and call me crazy but I'm going to be optimistic for once, I think what we're seeing is the slow painful death of mainstream media. I don't watch tv, I get my news through r/Brisbane (if something's of world shaking importance I assume I'll hear about it whether I choose to or not) and I think that's the going trend. I think as fewer people are watching TV and reading newspapers and getting their news from the "official" sources those stations/publications/etc are resorting to ever more desperate tabloid like tactics. They're in a death spiral of telling ever greater lies to keep our ever waning attention and it's not that our attention spans are decreasing it's that we have better things to pay attention to.

Government has always been slow and corrupt, it's not getting worse we're just more aware of it, our outlook may be bleak now but things will get better, maybe not for all causes or nations but overall things will get better.

 

[Black Rose]

I am not sure whether an A.I. filter will solve things for us in regards to correct information. Some conspiracy theorist believe it is an end to privacy and only gives us what we want, the same problem the video was talking about, "Bubbles", "Consumerism" "Trivia". It all depends on who designs the A.I. How intelligent the A.I. is. And if I want to watch MLP(my little pony) rather than CNN. The intelligence of the A.I. may depend on the intelligence of the consumer to some degree. It is not black or white. A.I. will have a superior intellect, how it is used will be the main priority.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

man, that video took a wild turn at the end there, with the AI stuff. Is it hard to believe that an AI can start generating narratives and controlling the world populace? Yes, that is hard to believe. To create narratives, you need to create meaning, morality, and understand human incentives and emotions. You can certainly extract statistical patterns and use machine-learning algos to predict how groups of people behave and respond to certain things, but that's just statistics.

the general problem nowadays is that most people don't know that when people say "AI", they are talking about either statistics or mathematical optimization or a combination of them. We have exactly zilch when it comes to artificial general intelligence – which is the type of AI I suspect most people associate with the term "AI"

 

[Cognisant]

True before you can design an AI to sort truth from rhetoric you need to be able to define the truth you want it to search for, the definition of truth itself.

Of course this means the AI will most likely share its creator's biases.

 

[The Grey Man]

I played MGS2 years ago and I don't remember it being this profound.

"I'll decide for myself what to believe and what to pass on!"

This has been my response to the increasingly politically-motivated construction of what is "known" mediately through public intelligence dissemination: to retreat to my room, like Descartes did, and seek the counsel of what I know immediately through experience. Past experience has made me conscious of the fact that news agencies don't merely report facts—they also choose what facts to report, and in what way. Their credibility is a Trojan horse of seeming honesty that carries lies of omission and, even worse, moralistic cant in its belly. Whether it is a Kremlin-controlled propaganda organ for Putin's inner circle or a vast media corporation owned by the American deep state, the "news" is increasingly becoming a means of top-down social control by our "democratic" governments.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Dont understand exactly at the end what he is trying to say. Social sanity is what exactly?

What type of AI doing what exactly?

Internet did just two things in terms of information. It accelerated the amount of information we can get and accelerated the amount of ideas we can share.
No doupt this can lead to lot of conflict, but it also leads to lot of good so much so that few people bitchslaping aint a big of an issue.

Internet didnt really change people. People are the same though.
In the past people with credentials were full of it. Just look how many things people with credentials got things wrong in the past 10 years.
Honest to God some bloggers have better content than so called experts.

Context is also very specific thing that people dont really like. I mean you would think that rational sane people would like context. However as far as I can tell most people don care for context and the news isnt really misleading people its just giving people what they want. If you want bullshit you read bullshit and then you can go and take a nap happy.

I mean most people I know dont even know what context means let alone look for it in issues.

And in the past? Well someone said something stupid and people happily followed. The world is full of sheep. And of course there are shephards.

Most people dont care about the truth. Most people dont even know how to process truth, and most people are too busy to even figure truth out. Bottom line its so easy to dupe people because they simply dont care they are being duped. I mean what is the last time you saw some rational political statement. What is the last time someone on the internet made any sense. Whats the last time you had a conversation with someone that was fact based and not opinion based. Whats the last time you provided context and people had accepted context.