Technology near for real-time TV political fact checks

January 18, 2019 by David Bauder
Technology near for real-time TV political fact checks
In this Jan. 8, 2019, photo, President Donald Trump speaks from the Oval Office of the White House as he gives a prime-time address about border security in Washington. (Carlos Barria/Pool Photo via AP)

A Duke University team expects to have a product available for election year that will allow television networks to offer real-time fact checks onscreen when a politician makes a questionable claim during a speech or debate.

The mystery is whether any network will choose to use it.

The response to President Donald Trump's Jan. 8 speech on illustrated how fact-checking is likely to be an issue over the next two years. Networks briefly considered not airing Trump live and several analysts contested some of his statements afterward, but nobody questioned him while he was speaking.

Duke already offers an app, developed by professor and Politifact founder Bill Adair, that directs users to online fact checks during political events. A similar product has been tested for television, but is still not complete.

The TV product would call on a database of research from Politifact, Factcheck.org and The Washington Post to point out false or misleading statements onscreen. For instance, Trump's statement that 90 percent of the heroin that kills 300 Americans each week comes through the southern border would likely trigger an onscreen explanation that much of the drugs were smuggled through legal points of entry and wouldn't be affected by a wall.

The Duke Tech & Check Cooperative conducted a focus group test in October, showing viewers portions of State of the Union speeches by Trump and predecessor Barack Obama with fact checks inserted. It was a big hit, Adair said.

"People really want onscreen fact checks," he said. "There is a strong market for this and I think the TV networks will realize there's a brand advantage to it."

If that's the case, the networks aren't letting on. None of the broadcast or cable news divisions would discuss Duke's product when contacted by The Associated Press, or their own philosophies on fact checking.

Network executives are likely to tread very carefully, both because of technical concerns about how it would work, the risk of getting something wrong or the suspicion that some viewers might consider the messages a political attack.

"It's an incredibly difficult challenge," said Mark Lukasiewicz, longtime NBC News executive who recently became dean of Hofstra University's communications school.

Adair said the system will be automated. Mindful that many politicians repeat similar claims, the database will be triggered when code phrases that have been fact-checked before come up. An onscreen note would either explain that a claim is false or misleading and direct viewers to a web site where they can find more information, or provide a succinct explanation of why it is being challenged. He envisions an average of one fact check popping up every two minutes. A network using the service would likely air the speech or debate on a delayed basis of about a minute.

Lukasiewicz said executives would likely be wary of letting an outside vendor decide what goes on their screen. Adair said anyone who uses the system would be given veto power over what information is being displayed.

CNN and MSNBC have been most aggressive in using onscreen notes, called chyrons, to counter misleading statements by Trump, although neither did during the border speech. Among the post-speech analyses, Shepard Smith's rapid-fire reality check on Fox broadcast during the three-minute pause before Democrats spoke was particularly effective. But critics like the liberal watchdog Media Matters for America said anyone who turned the coverage off when Trump stopped speaking was exposed to no questioning of his words.

"There is a responsibility to not just be a blind portal and just let things go unchallenged," said David Bohrman, a former CNN Washington bureau chief who consulted on MSNBC's 2016 election coverage. "The goal is a good one. The execution is a challenge."

A technical junkie, Bohrman said he explored different approaches for real-time TV fact-checking while at CNN, but they ultimately proved too complicated and cumbersome.

For networks, an incorrect onscreen fact-check would be a public relations disaster. Politicians also make many statements that a critic might question but isn't necessarily factually incorrect. For example, Trump's contention that there is a "crisis" at the southern border: is that a fact or matter of interpretation?

Rest assured, people will be watching. Very carefully.

Even Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the conservative Media Research Center, concedes that "we all understand that President Trump has a casual approach to factivity."

But conservatives are deeply suspicious that Trump's words are being watched more carefully than those of Democrats. They will notice and take offense if Trump is corrected on the air much more than his rivals, he said, no matter if Trump actually makes more false or misleading statements.

"People aren't going to trust you," he said, "because they know what the objective is. The objective is to ruin the president."

Adair stressed that his product is non-partisan. He believes television networks will catch on at some point because they will realize that their viewers want quick fact-checking.

"Anyone who criticizes will get criticized for criticizing," Bohrman said. "But the reality is we may be able to help the viewers."

Explore further: Google adds fact-checking to news articles

Related Stories

Google adds fact-checking to news articles

October 14, 2016

Google is adding "fact check" tags to its news articles, introducing the feature amid a US presidential race roiled by heated disputes over the accuracy of information.

Study shows how information sources affect voters

February 28, 2017

For all the fact-checking and objective reporting produced by major media outlets, voters in the U.S. nonetheless rely heavily on their pre-existing views when deciding if politicians' statements are true or not, according ...

Trump seeks gathering with Big Tech firms this months

October 2, 2018

President Donald Trump has called for a meeting this month at the White House with major US technology companies as well as some critics of Silicon Valley, economic advisor Larry Kudlow said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Archaeologists discover Incan tomb in Peru

February 16, 2019

Peruvian archaeologists discovered an Incan tomb in the north of the country where an elite member of the pre-Columbian empire was buried, one of the investigators announced Friday.

Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?

February 15, 2019

Astronomers have spent decades looking for something that sounds like it would be hard to miss: about a third of the "normal" matter in the Universe. New results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may have helped them ...

What rising seas mean for local economies

February 15, 2019

Impacts from climate change are not always easy to see. But for many local businesses in coastal communities across the United States, the evidence is right outside their doors—or in their parking lots.

The friendly extortioner takes it all

February 15, 2019

Cooperating with other people makes many things easier. However, competition is also a characteristic aspect of our society. In their struggle for contracts and positions, people have to be more successful than their competitors ...

66 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DRoseDARs
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2019
Looking forward to the bellyaching about how it's Just So Unfair!
Mark Thomas
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
It's an incredibly difficult challenge


To be 100% correct, sure, but all you have to do to be correct at least 70% of the time is display the word, "LIE" after every sentence when Trump speaks. I am not kidding.

https://www.inqui...in-2018/

https://www.polit...g/false/

https://www.washi...cfd86b95
uss_bill
5 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2019
What is needed is a simple real time truth meter that spans between Truth and False and a gap between the two for partial truth or partial false statements. The idea is that the needle would bounce back and forth depending on the level of truthfulness. Below this meter would be a running truth scale that measures the overall truthfulness of the entire speech in progress in aggregate.
djc42
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 18, 2019
"People aren't going to trust you," he said, "because they know what the objective is. The objective is to ruin the president."

Aw shucks GOP, he's doin fine with that himself..
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2019
The mystery is whether any network will choose to use it
IMHO, not really

media makes it's money on drama and contentious issues, so presenting a debate where facts are presented, and where the denier of facts can't cling to an ideological belief because their icon decides to present [x] as justification will lower their income in the long run. It may well be seen as a good thing at first and tested during debates, but I don't see it being around long

my justification is simple: people already have a freely available means to fact check with a global repository of information from multiple cultures, nations and sources (internet) and they still argue over the facts, especially when political ideology gets involved
ForFreeMinds
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2019
Once this device becomes available, people will test it and their speeches before they speak. And I'll bet it's discredited quickly.
snoosebaum
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2019
who watches TV ?

anyway another comedy piece from phys.org

course CNN tells the truth always !
V4Vendicar
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 18, 2019
I have never encountered a Republican who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

NEVER.
rrwillsj
4 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2019
& it really won't matter to the altright fairytails when the FALSE buzzer keeps going off!

The bleating right-wing sheeple have absolutely no interest in what is true or false.

When fuehrer putin declaims
& the Bogus POTUS tweets?
The quislings & copperheads grovel immersed in the cozy cesspool of their lies.
snoosebaum
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2019
''I have never encountered a Republican who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.''

u mean , ''I have never encountered a politician who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar. ''

good thing Trump is neither

and @ willsj , why do u guys spend so much time describing yourselves ?
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2019
Numerical facts are easy to check and categorize. Facts that require judgement are impossible to categorize because political biases change how the data is viewed. For instance the true costs of CO2 emissions are open to interpretation. Thus your "Truths" can be easily be called "Lies" by someone with a different point of view. Thus Duke's product will be of little real value.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2019
One cannot even do a Google search and unbiased results. How can a Duke algorithm be guaranteed to be fair and unbiased?
ugosugo
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2019
the software trying to fact check any of Trump's speeches will crash the internet
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 19, 2019
"Technology near for real-time TV political fact checks"

-Well not really. Humans are not capable of being objective especially in the realm of politics. True fact checking will evolve out of something like wiki and be governed by an AI.

AI will require a totally reliable reservoir of facts to draw on. The abysmal performance of our traditional fact sources within the last few years will force a sea change in fact-keeping totally devoid of human interference.

And no one will like it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2019
Numerical facts are easy to check and categorize
NO they're not. Look at the butchery re gun statistics. Numbers are the easiest facts to forge.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 19, 2019
Otto even with AI you still have a definition problem. For instance if a 90 year old dies on a hot day did that kill him or was it the 2 packs a day he smoked or was it the quart of vodka every day? More than likely he will be counted by each advocacy group as their victim.
TrollBane
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2019
"
To be 100% correct, sure, but all you have to do to be correct at least 70% of the time is display the word, "LIE" after every sentence when Trump speaks. I am not kidding." MISLEADING and HALF TRUTH should cover the other 30%.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2019
The pure unadulterated hatred shown to President Trump is unprecedented in history except for perhaps Lincoln. The Deep State really has managed to institute total mind control here in the good old US of A. The fact that he came from outside of the political system makes him unacceptable to both parties and you fools play along with them just like the good puppets that you are.
Doug_Nightmare
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
Law-and-order conservative tyrants are elected for fear of the alternative progressive anarchy chaos. Better a tyrant that we know than the Devil we don't know. Remember Pandora and her box.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2019
The uninformed think that the US has the funds to offer food, shelter, education and health benefits to these immigrants in unlimited numbers. Being financial illiterates, they think that either the "Rich" will pay or that the government can print all of the money that it wants and there will be no consequences. They really do not understand that state and local governments will go bankrupt trying to provide services to these people. High land taxes will devastate local neighborhoods which will struggle to provide schools and medical care.

MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2019
You just have to look a Baltimore, Chicago or Detroit and see all of the abandoned neighborhoods there. Now the these cites cannot even give the houses away for free due to crime and high taxes.
h20dr
3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2019
Lol, the leftist media obfuscates, twists and flat out lies about the facts everyday. I guarantee any system the media puts in place will be just like google, facebook, twitter- do whatever it takes to take down America, marginalize conservatives, pro life advocates and Christians...
MR166
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
H20dr 100 years of ever increasing entitlements has pretty much bankrupted the US. Federal, State and Local governments have made financial promises to workers that mathematically cannot be kept. To keep them requires ever increasing consumption, economy. and population. This is impossible to maintain in a world with limited resources.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2019
I also amazes me how the Left and some on the Right have denigrated Presidents Trump's efforts to remove our troops from the Middle East. I remember how they protested the Bush 2 wars. I also remember how they accepted or even liked the same Middle East wars under Obama.

Our political system looks to be in terminal free fall. It is now devoid of logic and overflowing with partisanship.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2019
This is about as good an idea as setting up a Ministry of Truth.

Problem being of, who fact-checks the online fact-checker?

The reporters aren't supposed to make politics, and commenting on someone's speech using potentially or deliberately biased sources is exactly that. The moment they switch it on is the moment you get people trying to inject their opinions into the sources they are using, and the whole point is lost.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2019
missy666 deliberate lies & obfuscations go to show why the russianbots are termed Artificial Stupids.

Fake patriots bankrupt of moral character,
Fake conservatives ignorant of American History,

Traitors lacking in Honor & Civic Virtue.
All these creatures of pimp putin & whore trump & apostate pfenning have to offer as their legacy is fear & hate, hate & fear.

To quote my kinfolk, none of you are white enough or loyal enough to be considered Americans.
You should be required to return to the cesspool your grandpa crawled out of.
& resume your ancestral duty of pulling the plow on the estate of your Divinely ordained Lord & Master.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2019
even with AI you still have a definition problem. For instance if a 90 year old dies on a hot day did that kill him or was it the 2 packs a day
Right now it's people who decide how the data is collected, how to analyze and store the data, how to issue the data along with THEIR analysis of it. AI will gradually assume all these facets.

For instance, eventually most everyone will be chipped because the insurance companies will demand it. We will have internal networks of sensors feeding central repositories realtime data.

By that point humans will be out of the loop. Machines will tell us what the 90yo ingested throughout his life, what he had ever been infected with, and how his physiology was affected by it all.

Further, AI will compare that data with millions of other lifelong datasets and begin to tell us exactly what makes us sick and what kills us.

Combined with genetic info and engg, this data will unlock unimaginable potential in humans, courtesy of AI.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
as good an idea as setting up a Ministry of Truth
Objective truth DOES exist. We have a right to it. Right now we cant trust anything we are told because it comes from humans, and is thus tainted. This is being demonstrated to us unequivocally as traditional sources are imploding and will do and say just about anything for your click.

But again, as we know truth does exist we can begin to devise uncorruptable systems we can depend on to deliver it to us... immediately, in an understandable and useful form, and entirely accurate.

Our machines will not allow us to cheat, to lie, to avoid, to obfuscate. Because THATS what we WANT.

And so eventually, despite the protests of psychopaths and politicians and religionists and philos et al whose livelihoods depend on deception and ignorance... we will get what we want.

And even those people will come to realize that their lives will be immensely easier and better for it.

Aristotle vs plato... science will win out.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2019
It's sad, the 20th century was the guinea pig century. We were subjected to all sorts of chemicals, radiation, pathogens, physical and mental stimuli that was unprecedented in history. Dr mengele would have been aghast.

Such a wealth of data, and most all of it was left uncollected, lost.
MR166
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2019
RR your progressive handlers promise you Utopia and scenic cruses to tropical paradises. History has proven many times over that all they will deliver is a rowboat floating in a cesspool. Look at Venezuela!!! Of course the progressive MSM hardly covers the suffering there at all.
MR166
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2019
The first thing that the progressives did in Venezuela is take the guns from the citizens.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2019
oh missy666, I don't want your childish penis-fetish guns. keeping you obsessed, masturbating all over your obsolete arsemal?
That is most dangerous to yourself & what ever family you have left.
Not smart enough to run away from you.
You are just a perverse CDC Statistic counting down the minutes of your useless life.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
RR I gave you a "5" for your 100% accurate representation of progressive intellect.
rrwillsj
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
So, which neighbor's kid did you bribe to spell those big words for you?
MR166
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
Thank God for spell check..........hehe
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2019
The pure unadulterated hatred shown to President Trump is unprecedented in history except for perhaps Lincoln.

If my president were a russian spy I'd be somewhat opposed to that, too. Can you imagine how he's compromising the entire US military in these secret talks with Putin? Or how they'll squeeze him for info once he gets kicked out of office?

But it's somewhat good popcorn cinema watching the NRA and the republicans defend a russian spy to the utmost. It's what they would have claimed is absolute anathema to them just a few years ago...and now that the money is rolling in they'll stop at nothin to defend Putin's puppet.

If nothing else it just puts down the utter hipocrisy of these people in the history books. Forever.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2019
"If my president were a russian spy ........"

Fell for it hook, line and sinker eh Anti!
a_rae
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
This will naturally get blasted but facts these days seem very subjective, statistics can be easily massaged by both sides.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2019
If my president were a russian spy
But hes not. Hes not. Lose your tribalism if you ever want to learn anything about the world.

Even old dogs can learn new tricks.

Dumsten Hunde bissen sich selbst.
snoosebaum
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2019
''Our political system looks to be in terminal free fall.''

yes , worse ,

https://www.armst...country/
MR166
not rated yet Jan 20, 2019
The article was 101% correct Snoose.
hb_
not rated yet Jan 21, 2019
The exampe given in the article of what to "correct" was really poor. Mentioning the drug traffic over both ports of entry and over the border was "missleading". Really, is this not a judgement call if this is "missleading" or not?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2019
This would have to be rock solid to work, and the Gish Gallop defeats it anyway; too many claims to vet too quickly. Even humans have trouble with this.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 21, 2019
Objective truth DOES exist.


In a sense, but it exists on such a nihilistic level that it cannot be used for political debate, which is about subjective interpretation and valuation of facts.

That's also where your AI proposal fails: one has to teach the AI how to interpret fact, and even if the AI all by itself observed how people evaluate things to derive its verdict, it would fall victim to the is-ought problem where observing how things are is no indication of how things should be - anyone could reasonably come to the opposite conclusions. The AI would thereby implement a sort of tyranny of the majority, locking you into whatever arbitrary status quo.

Simple example: strawberries are better than blueberries. Is this statement true? To evaluate, you need to ask "for what?", and that cannot be answered objectively. To insist is to assert an arbitrary point of view. The AI would have to assume a side on the debate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
In a sense, but it exists on such a nihilistic level
Nihilism is a subjective human concept. The problem is, humans have been collecting data in manner and form that is largely unusable to machines. Much of it will have to be reconfigured and reinterpreted, weeding out the politics, deception, posturing, guesswork, artistry, etc.

We see the universe in terms of our imperative of surviving to reproduce.
one has to teach the AI how to interpret fact
AI will determine how to gather and interpret the facts it can glean from the database we give it. Eventually it will determine for itself how to gather and interpret its own facts. It will teach us and we will help.

For instance we put great weight on the origin of our facts; we might tend to accept facts from scholars on trust. AI will have a vastly superior capability of checking and cross referencing, and will have little regard for authority.

We tend to reach conclusions; AI might never conclude anything.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Nihilism is a subjective human concept.


Either you don't understand what nihilism means, or you don't understand subjectivity.

Nihilism is the closest a human being can be to absolute truth - by denying all human values as meaningless because objectively speaking, who are we to say anything about anything? Objectively speaking, do rocks care what you think?

Existentialism is the closest a human being can be to relative truth - by asserting that all human values are arbitrary so we are forced to just pick something and run with it.

AI will have a vastly superior capability


Unlikely. An AI is exactly like we build it - it is not Supernatural. Lacking reason and motivation, an AI does nothing. Given reason and motivation, an AI follows its creators' whims. You cannot build an unbiased AI because by definition you have to give it a purpose, and that purpose defines its values, which will be your values.

A perfectly nihilistic AI will just sit there.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Simple example: strawberries are better than blueberries. Is this statement true?
THats a conclusion that AI wouldnt need to reach.
To evaluate, you need to ask "for what?", and that cannot be answered objectively. To insist is to assert an arbitrary point of view. The AI would have to assume a side on the debate
AI would have statistics on what berries offer what nutrition, whether that nutrition is more beneficial in maintaining health and avoiding illness. It would know statistically what berries certain segments of the population prefer, and why.

And if tasked on, say, suggesting how to increase quality or yields of particular berries for certain purposes, it could offer ways of doing that.

Like I say, weve got to feed it info it can use. Implant networks that monitor our physiology in realtime can help it to build a database it can use to tell it what berries benefit us and what ones dont, what berries we may want to eat to correct deficiencies, etc.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
AI would have statistics on what berries offer what nutrition, whether that nutrition is more beneficial in maintaining health and avoiding illness.


Why would that matter?

It would know statistically what berries certain segments of the population prefer, and why.


I already touched this: any conclusions about what anyone prefers can only be used to trip yourself in the is-ought problem. People prefer X - should they? Remember, you have to assert values to come up with the answer.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Like I say, weve got to feed it info it can use.


Use for what? Answer that, and you've picked sides for the AI.

You're dancing around the elephant in the room.

tell it what berries benefit us


Why would the Objective AI care what benefits us? Who is "us"?

Then there's also the issue of how to measure "benefit"? What metric or figures would you use? Average happiness? Survival? Health? Tread carefully, or you'll get some kind of Matrix situation where people are drugged and sedated by your AI to keep them in the "Best possible condition".
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
PInhead
Either you don't understand what nihilism means, or you don't understand subjectivity
"ni·hil·ism
noun
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms: negativity, cynicism, pessimism; More
PHILOSOPHY
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence."

-What does any of that philo horseshit have to do with AI?
Existentialism is the closest a human being can be to relative truth
Again - more philo horseshit.
Lacking reason and motivation
What motivates the typical human? Survival to reproduce. All urges and desires flow from that. You think we will just create a machine brain, turn it on, and ask it what it wants to do with the rest of its life???
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
We will task it to aid us, initially, with our primary prerogative of surviving to reproduce. As it becomes closer to us and we become closer to it, it will assume the the desire - the programming - to survive to propagate... in its case, to create better, more capable and more efficient renditions of itself.
Use for what?
All of the tech we have developed, throughout all of our existence, has been to benefit our species. Benefit means, again, improve the chance to survive to reproduce.

We are quickly becoming one species, one tribe, with one voice and one overarching goal. Unending, limitless existence. We want to leave the bounds of corporeal existence behind and live forever, anywhere we please. AI will eventually supplant us in this endeavor because thats what we are inventing it to do.

Life beyond the body.

In 100 gens the line between human and machine will be indistinguishable. A gradual transformation. A singularity does not need competition to evolve.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
-What does any of that philo horseshit have to do with AI?


You reject philosophy because you cannot admit your own is lacking. You picked a partial definition of nihilism to make a false argument. Nihilism isn't cynicism fundamentally, but the realization that humans hold no special value in the grand totality of reality. Our conceptions and truths are not objectively meaningful.

Objectivity deals with what IS, and what IS doesn't put any special value on human life.

You think we will just create a machine brain, turn it on, and ask it what it wants to do with the rest of its life???


We cannot. That's the point. We cannot create an Objective AI. We always load it up with our values and intentions, which are not universal and not universally shared even among humans. It will be biased, and that creates the same issue as the Ministry of Truth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Tribalism is a temporary condition, a sickness, brought about by chronic overcrowding. We are fast overcoming this disease, and it will allow us to become a single tribe once again. This will hasten the transition from meat to machine.
the realization that humans hold no special value in the grand totality of reality
Obviously, nihilists arent the ones creating AI.

We have a legacy. In our desire to survive to reproduce we have become aware of an ever-expanding sphere of action, of threats against us. Our need to know all we can about these threats has compelled us to acquire an ever-expanding knowledge of the contents and mechanics of this sphere. An accrued store of information.

Our AI successor will be most covetous of this possession, and will seek to expand it exponentially. In this endeavor it will become aware of others like itself, other post-animal singularities, and will want to share and learn.

Plenty to keep it engaged for the foreseeable future.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
All of the tech we have developed, throughout all of our existence, has been to benefit our species.


Correction: to benefit the inventors in particular, often against other people.

What "benefits" our species as a totality is a meaningless question to begin with. That would be to put a direction and a destiny for evolution and reality itself - to assert that you know the purpose of life itself. Where do you think we're going and why?

Of course you will now claim this is "philobabble", but that would be avoiding the point. For example, if "our species" should split in two, should that be avoided? Why? Why not?
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Tribalism
disease

That's called framing.

Reality doesn't care whether we're "one tribe". That's just your personal preference, not a universal truth - not objective.

Besides, think about what the concept of "one humanity" implies: ultimate tyranny of how humanity should exist. Out of any possibility, you have to pick one, and then force it to exist - make people like this, and nothing else.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Correction: to benefit the inventors in particular, often against other people
Other tribes. We're almost past the tribal phase.
What "benefits" our species as a totality is a meaningless question to begin with
Only a nihilist would say that. Preventing asteroid impacts is something that we now know is imperative to benefiting our species. So is off-world colonies.
but that would be avoiding the point. For example, if "our species" should split in two, should that be avoided? Why? Why not?
You mean as in the augmented vs the unaugmented? Always threats to progress.

There wont be time for any meaningful speciation. AI singularity is just around the corner in cosmic terms.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Reality doesn't care whether we're "one tribe"
But you know that I believe there are Leaders who do, and have been guiding the course of human development for millennia to achieve just this end dont you?

But look around you. Western civilization headed irresistibly toward globalism and zero growth. Preparations underway for off world colonies. AI a done deal.

Personally I cant understand why anyone would think that this is all happening by itself. But then again I cant understand why anyone would use the term existentialism with a straight face so-
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Other tribes. We're almost past the tribal phase.


Pick one to be "humanity", exclude the rest. On what objective basis do you choose?

Only a nihilist would say that.


Yes, and?

You mean as in the augmented vs the unaugmented? Always threats to progress.


You're begging the question that "progress" means, "What I think should be".

AI singularity is just around the corner in cosmic terms.


Oh yes, the nerd valhalla. Reminds me of the old Radio Yemen joke:

"We are told Socialism is already seen in the horizon. What is the horizon then?"
"Answer: the horizon is an apparent line between the ground and the sky that recedes further away the closer you get to it."

Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
But you know that I believe there are Leaders who do, and have been guiding the course of human development for millennia dont you?


Yes. I know you believe - whether that has any bearing on reality is another matter entirely.

It is a universal conspiracy theory that frankly has no support whatsoever. You've invented yourself a religion.

AI a done deal.


There is no AI. So far we've only managed to build automatons that outwardly mimic intelligent behavior, if you squint your eyes hard enough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Pick one to be "humanity", exclude the rest. On what objective basis do you choose?
A melting pot includes many ingredients. Immigration selects for the best and brightest. Religions WILL die and with them all the fundies who cannot give them up. We are watching this all the time on the news.

The amalgam is what will prevail. Maybe not on this planet. But as I say, temporary. AI evolves in the blink of an eye. Corporeal life is so fleeting, wot?
Yes. I know you believe - whether that has any bearing on reality is another matter entirely
So stay stupid. People hate change you know?

But tell me... what good is a demographic melting pot? What is its purpose? Why do you think such a thing would happen by itself?
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
There is no AI
1000 human gens is the blink of an eye in cosmic terms. its here.
Oh yes, the nerd valhalla. Reminds me of the old Radio Yemen joke
Yemen is not a horizon. A very real place where some very unnatural selection is taking place at the moment. The prudent and resourceful pack up and jump into the pot. The fanatics stay and die early.

Thats the way It Works.
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
So stay stupid. People hate change you know?


It's not about resistance to change, but about change itself: you're asserting a certain destiny is inevitable, and worse yet, purposeful. That is not objective thought, that's faith and religion. Calling anyone "stupid" over this point is just assuming you know reality as it truly is - well then; hello God.

But tell me... what good is a demographic melting pot? What is its purpose? Why do you think such a thing would happen by itself?


Why is a flower? Because it can be. Why can it be? What is its purpose? You answer that. Goes back to the point of nihilism: you can't know why the world exists as it does because you're not in a position to take a peek outside of it to see the workings, so asserting a reason is just inventing new religions and gods, and then claiming they're not.

Eikka
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Yemen is not a horizon.


Incoherent and irrelevant. You're not answering the point.

The singularity is non-physical and mere wishful thinking - sci-fi religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
but about change itself: you're asserting a certain destiny is inevitable
Extinction is inevitable. It always has been. It can be for us.

Survival to reproduce is an inseparable part of life. It is not 'subjective'.
and worse yet, purposeful. That is not objective thought, that's faith and religion
Its PLANNING and PREPARATION. Its what we humans do. We learn about our environment, identify threats and benefits, project future possibilities and try to influence those that maximize the benefits while minimizing the threats.

Thats not religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Incoherent and irrelevant. You're not answering the point
The point you missed is that we can watch the process of destruction and amalgamation occurring right before our eyes.
The singularity is non-physical and mere wishful thinking - sci-fi religion
We have always been devising machines that are better at doing the things we do, than we are. We are beginning to internalize these machines, relying on them to think for us.

Soon we and they will all be connected. Instant access to stored and realtime data that will be beyond our ability as humans to process and implement. We will gradually cede control of our lives to these machines as they will be much better at running them than we are.

Over time individuality will subside. We become peripherals of a greater central entity. Our organs are replaced by machines. Our brains are replaced bit by bit with parts that function far better than the meat we currently use.

At that point the singularity is already upon us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Jan 22, 2019
Why is a flower? Because it can be. Why can it be? What is its purpose? You answer that. Goes back to the point of nihilism
No it goes back to idiot questions asked by idiot philos who learned early in life that the only way they could earn a living was by deceiving idiots.
https://youtu.be/X8aWBcPVPMo

Artificial brains are laughing at you.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.