Fake News

[Martin Hash]

I’m thinking JD is a bot?

[DBTrek]

I’m thinking JD is a bot?

Maybe of the Democratic party, but he's a human user.
Check his verse, I don't think AI is capable of making the connections in some of the wordplay.
Read the writing on the wall, it ain't getting built - Seems too much of a leap for AI; from metaphor to political commentary.

[Speaker to Animals]

I represented your idea so damn accurately that you just repeated the conclusion I inferred from it.

Your idea isn’t new, most rational people are aware words handed down from other humans is not the word of God.

There is something called justified belief that we round up to facts and truth, and it’s been working quite well to get us to the moon, understand the cycles of history and know what’s happening in our world.

That it’s not perfect is both obvious and acceptable because it brings us nearer to the truth.

No. You obviously lied again, which is ironic considering what you are defending. weren't you just disputing the idea that leftists are inherently dishonest?

[jediuser598]

I represented your idea so damn accurately that you just repeated the conclusion I inferred from it.

Your idea isn’t new, most rational people are aware words handed down from other humans is not the word of God.

There is something called justified belief that we round up to facts and truth, and it’s been working quite well to get us to the moon, understand the cycles of history and know what’s happening in our world.

That it’s not perfect is both obvious and acceptable because it brings us nearer to the truth.

Say you wanted to do "just the facts."

Humans, by their very nature, are biased. I think everyone recognizes this. Their selection of facts (even if those facts are 100% correct) will be biased.

But then if we can verify those facts, then we are closer to the truth for it. (basically repeating what you said)

A person goes out knowing this, knowing that they can't help but be bias, and starts just collecting verifiable truth, knowing that innately they are flawed with selection bias.

Let's put this as a real world example.

Was on a Ferry recently and they stopped the Ferry to search for a body. What would a journalist do?

#1 note the time in your phone. Note when the ferry stopped.

I can't report on what they said because I wasn't recording and the memory is flawed. I believe they said something along the lines of "we have to stop in safe water and launch rescue boats."

There's a problem with both of those, because that relies on my credibility. I would have to go and get statements from perhaps the captain (who might have a log) and maybe the police who responded to the call, and also perhaps from the people who made the call to the police. Still not 100% though.

#2 Take pictures. Hard to say that pictures aren't truth, though they can be doctored.

I can 100% attest that a boat with police lights, with people on it stopped in front of the Ferry to check debris in the water. I have the picture.

I can 100% attest that someone wearing a WSF jacket was talking to passengers on the ferry. I have the picture.

I can 100% attest that there was a large vehicle with lights on it (perhaps fire truck) and another vehicle with lights on it parked at the end of Waterman Public Pier.

With my camera I don't see how you could challenge those facts if I have pictures of it.

I also have the ticket I bought, and that time as well as the fact that I boarded the next available Ferry.

The camera absolutely gives me some truth that I can say, hey, this is 100% true, I have the pictures.

But facts are very basic, I can't say that's a fire truck, I can't say that's a Washington state ferry official, I can't say that's a police search boat. I'm pretty sure they are but it's not 100%.

How would I know? I could go and ask the WSF, for their name, and then go check records to see if they work there. There's a lot of leg work and research to be done to know something is 100%.

[JohnDonne]

I represented your idea so damn accurately that you just repeated the conclusion I inferred from it.

Your idea isn’t new, most rational people are aware words handed down from other humans is not the word of God.

There is something called justified belief that we round up to facts and truth, and it’s been working quite well to get us to the moon, understand the cycles of history and know what’s happening in our world.

That it’s not perfect is both obvious and acceptable because it brings us nearer to the truth.

Say you wanted to do "just the facts."

Humans, by their very nature, are biased. I think everyone recognizes this. Their selection of facts (even if those facts are 100% correct) will be biased.

But then if we can verify those facts, then we are closer to the truth for it. (basically repeating what you said)

A person goes out knowing this, knowing that they can't help but be bias, and starts just collecting verifiable truth, knowing that innately they are flawed with selection bias.

Let's put this as a real world example.

Was on a Ferry recently and they stopped the Ferry to search for a body. What would a journalist do?

#1 note the time in your phone. Note when the ferry stopped.

I can't report on what they said because I wasn't recording and the memory is flawed. I believe they said something along the lines of "we have to stop in safe water and launch rescue boats."

There's a problem with both of those, because that relies on my credibility. I would have to go and get statements from perhaps the captain (who might have a log) and maybe the police who responded to the call, and also perhaps from the people who made the call to the police. Still not 100% though.

#2 Take pictures. Hard to say that pictures aren't truth, though they can be doctored.

I can 100% attest that a boat with police lights, with people on it stopped in front of the Ferry to check debris in the water. I have the picture.

I can 100% attest that someone wearing a WSF jacket was talking to passengers on the ferry. I have the picture.

I can 100% attest that there was a large vehicle with lights on it (perhaps fire truck) and another vehicle with lights on it parked at the end of Waterman Public Pier.

With my camera I don't see how you could challenge those facts if I have pictures of it.

I also have the ticket I bought, and that time as well as the fact that I boarded the next available Ferry.

The camera absolutely gives me some truth that I can say, hey, this is 100% true, I have the pictures.

But facts are very basic, I can't say that's a fire truck, I can't say that's a Washington state ferry official, I can't say that's a police search boat. I'm pretty sure they are but it's not 100%.

How would I know? I could go and ask the WSF, for their name, and then go check records to see if they work there. There's a lot of leg work and research to be done to know something is 100%.

I’m sure there is a lot of leg work for fact checkers, well more like a lot of phone calls, but remember there’s no 100% proof.

Maybe you should become a journalist if that type of work intrigues you.

[jediuser598]

I’m sure there is a lot of leg work for fact checkers, well more like a lot of phone calls, but remember there’s no 100% proof.

Does A=A?

[Martin Hash]

Acts like a bot, treated like a bot.

[JohnDonne]

@jedi

That’s an abstract equation though, we were talking about the kind of proof a journalist gathers

[jediuser598]

@jedi

That’s an abstract equation though, we were talking about the kind of proof a journalist gathers

Just trying to set up a foundation for an argument, basically asking, do you believe in fundamental logic? If you do, good.

Say you take a picture of someone skateboarding.

What can you say with 100% certainty?

[JohnDonne]

@jedi

That’s an abstract equation though, we were talking about the kind of proof a journalist gathers

Just trying to set up a foundation for an argument, basically asking, do you believe in fundamental logic? If you do, good.

Say you take a picture of someone skateboarding.

What can you say with 100% certainty?

Suppose I take a pic of someone skateboarding, is that the premise? Abstractly, the conclusion is the premise, just as A=A.

In real life, I take a picture, I might wake up from a dream. Now, in real life I could say with 100% certainty that it appeared to whatever perceives things which I identify as "myself" that at that moment I took a picture. Yet that evidence is only available to one person. So in an newspaper article, nothing is 100%