Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose we wanted to create an "ideal" unbiased, non-partisan fact-checking system. I suspect the only way to do this is to have a panel of well-educated, widely-respected people who represent a wide diversity of social/political/economic/philosophical viewpoints (although I'm open to other suggestions). Who would you recommend to be on this panel? In your view, who are the most intelligent, fair-minded liberals and conservatives such that, if they were on this panel, you would have a high degree of respect for their analysis of a controversial issue?
(Or, if you think that a panel of this sort already exists, please tell me about it.)
Suppose we wanted to create an "ideal" unbiased, non-partisan fact-checking system. I suspect the only way to do this is to have a panel of well-educated, widely-respected people who represent a wide diversity of social/political/economic/philosophical viewpoints (although I'm open to other suggestions).
...
No, if all you want is fact-checking, you don't want/need people in the loop @ all. (Of course, you'll have people - techs & so on, involved in the low-level decision-making. But the fewer people involved @ the high-end decision-making, the better. People have biases - it's practically the definition of a person.) I'd rent IBM's Watson (yah, it'll cost an arm & a leg - you didn't set parms on this). Of course, Watson might have a bias - towards a chilly kind of machine logic, & by extension, to machines in general. But in terms of output, that's fairly easy to monitor & control.
Load Watson up with the appropriate text (& it can process oral speech - natural language too - but there's plenty of printed material out there, or online, or what-have-you). With the right background material to consult, tweak the software until you get results comparable to those from an expert panel of humans.
You'd have to exclude esthetic questions, @ least @ first - until there's some reliable modeling software that can be implemented. I don't know that that's an area that's drawing a lot of attention in computer software.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
My first choice would be Jim Webb, he's been a player in both parties and I'd trust him either way. I think Condoleezza Rice would also be a good choice.
Load Watson up with the appropriate text (& it can process oral speech - natural language too - but there's plenty of printed material out there, or online, or what-have-you). With the right background material to consult, tweak the software until you get results comparable to those from an expert panel of humans.
I think you are right, to a large extent. AI should play a major role. (In fact, FB and others are already using algorithms to help catch fake news.) But there could still be implicit bias in virtually any design of an information-gathering/analyzing machine, so I would still want some humans from diverse perspectives involved as well.
And (in resonance with my other thread) ultimately, no matter what system is employed, individual people will still need to employ some of their own rudimentary critical-thinking skills. Even with the best possible system, I suspect that in most cases there will still be at least two contradictory conclusions, and people will still be responsible for making an effort to comprehend both sides. I don't think that even the best fact-checking and/or system of data analysis could entirely exempt individuals from the responsibility of thinking for themselves. And we'd always have to beware of potential hacking. I doubt that even the best machine can be 100% hack-proof.
Suppose we wanted to create an "ideal" unbiased, non-partisan fact-checking system. I suspect the only way to do this is to have a panel of well-educated, widely-respected people who represent a wide diversity of social/political/economic/philosophical viewpoints (although I'm open to other suggestions). Who would you recommend to be on this panel? In your view, who are the most intelligent, fair-minded liberals and conservatives such that, if they were on this panel, you would have a high degree of respect for their analysis of a controversial issue?
(Or, if you think that a panel of this sort already exists, please tell me about it.)
I don't think there can be a non partisan fact checking panel. At least not on political matters.
My first choice would be Jim Webb, he's been a player in both parties and I'd trust him either way. I think Condoleezza Rice would also be a good choice.
Both of these seem like they would be reasonable choices to me. At the very least, it seems to me that they both have the intelligence and temperament to comprehend and weight evidence from different perspectives. I'm curious to see if anyone here would disagree.
I don't think there can be a non partisan fact checking panel. At least not on political matters.
In previous posts we've seen the beginnings of a possible panel. Suppose the panel was composed of Web, Rice, and an AI like Watson. If this panel posted their analysis of an issue, would you take it seriously? Or, if they arrived at a conclusion that you didn't like, would you simply assume that they were corrupt, or in conspiracy, etc., and not even bother to review their findings?
It's up to people to check facts, evaluate sources and apply logic.
I agree 100%. But I wish there could be at least one source that all major sides agree is fair-minded enough to be taken seriously, even when their conclusions don't agree with your own.
BTW: I don't really expect an actual real-life panel to be created (although that would be nice). I'm mostly hoping for a list of names, and I'm curious to see if anyone on this list would be acceptable to both right and left-wing advocates. For example, would anyone on the right or left ignore the analysis of a panel just because Webb or Rice or an AI were on the panel? Or, instead, would you find yourself thinking "Hmmm...their opinions are worth listening to.")
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-11-2017 at 07:38 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, there's a natural choice, more-or-less
