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?
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?
