Comment on No AI* Here - A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter - Waterfox Blog

• Mac@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  You’re never going to believe this: i can take the article at face value because it’s not being routed through a slop generator when i read it.

  Whether or not a source can be believed to be true is not within the scope of this thread.

  source

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Right, you take the article at face value. So exactly as I originally said:

    you sure are relying on just believing whatever you read without any checking whatsoever.

    source

    • Mac@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s the opposite of what I said.
      I’m afraid you’ve given your ability to infer language to AI and therefore there is nothing more to say here. Have a nice day.

      source
• asudox@lemmy.asudox.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  certainly not by using llms, that’s for sure

  source

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Okay, we've established how you don't do it. So how do you go about the process of fact checking every news article you read?

    source

    • asudox@lemmy.asudox.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I check the sources.

      source

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        For every news article you read?

        That's the point here. AI can allow for tedious tasks to be automated. I could have a button in my browser that, when clicked, tells the AI to follow up on those sources to confirm that they say what the article says they say. It can highlight the ones that don't. It can add notes mentioning if those sources happen to be inherently questionable - environmental projections from a fossil fuel think tank, for example. It can highlight claims that don't have a source, and can do a web search to try to find them.

        These are all things I can do myself by hand, sure. I do that sometimes when an article seems particularly important or questionable. It takes a lot of time and effort, though. I would much rather have an AI do the grunt work of going through all that and highlighting problem areas for me to potentially check up on myself. Even if it makes mistakes sometimes that's still going to give me a far more thoroughly checked and vetted view of the news than the existing process.

        Did you look at the link I gave you about how this sort of automated fact-checking has worked out on Wikipedia? Or was it too much hassle to follow the link manually, read through it, and verify whether it actually supported or detracted from my argument?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Mac@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Don’t fall for their redirect. This thread is about them trusting “AI”.

        source