Nearly half of young people trust AI over a human for fact-checking, report says(news.sky.com)
13 pointsby austinallegro6 hours ago4 comments
  • ChrisRR3 hours ago
    If the AI is drawing from multiple sources, I can understand the logic
  • eqvinox3 hours ago
    Why does this article not have its author(s) listed?
  • metalman2 hours ago
    the psychology is more like they are trusting THEIR ai , and are having a bit of a problem with boundrys and then accepting when it's wrong. peer groups of one, if you will. the wide variety of failure modes is ripe for a whole new genre of opocaliptic end times storys, and of course real life bad shit. I can feel my face is carrying something beween a snear and a grimace thinking about the idea of building a society of helpless psuedo privilaged know nothings, but smiling now thinking they are soft AND crunchy, and good with barbeque sauce.
  • simianwords5 hours ago
    As it should be. The average person believes in wild conspiracy theories. Ai keeps people grounded.
    • verdverm5 hours ago
      Ai's will believe in anything too, requires only a touch of text
      • simianwords4 hours ago
        I use Claude and it really doesn’t. Can you show me an example of how it believes in anything?
        • BoxOfRain19 minutes ago
          While conspiracies would be pushing it, an illuminating exercise is to ask your favourite LLM leading political questions that cause it to assume your identity is something other than your own.

          I also find Claude deeply Americentric in a lot of ways for what it's worth.

        • StevenWaterman4 hours ago
          If there is a genuine conspiracy, it (edit: not Claude evidently) will take their claims at face value. A couple I've run into recently:

          - why did Hollywood lobby for box office receipts to be added to the onion futures act

          - do gratuities on cruise ships actually increase crew pay

          In both cases it went to the official source and repeated their statements, without thinking about the fact it was blatant paltering. Only after I pointed that out did it go digging deeper and realise it was more complicated (and less favourable for Hollywood / cruise lines) than it had said

          Which I'm assuming is a consequence of the post-4o anti-delusion anti-conspiracy training

          • simianwords4 hours ago
            What answers do you expect and what sources do you have to back it up?

            this is what I got. And we can examine whether Claude is egregiously wrong or not. Although I agree that LLMs can't figure out when there's a genuine conspiracy theory.

            https://claude.ai/share/3dda5c01-420c-4869-8a07-dd7813e50647

            https://claude.ai/share/cdb6960c-ed64-4d36-8b50-acccc325411b

            • StevenWaterman4 hours ago
              Cool I stand corrected, I had asked an openai model (probably sol?) and got much worse answers, broadly:

              - Listing the reasons why Hollywood claimed to want to law, like not giving premature ideas that a movie would flop, without pointing out how much Hollywood benefits from the information symmetry

              - Saying yes the gratuities affect pay but not as straightforwardly as you would expect, quoting the "all gratuities go to staff" while ignoring the fact that can and does mean paying the labour bill the company would have to pay anyway

              I would be happy with the answers you linked. Which I'm now realising demonstrates the point you actually made. I read "I use Claude" as context not as a conditional.

              I didn't realise there was such a difference on this. We need a "willing to ignore official company information and point out paltering" benchmark.

    • nephihaha5 hours ago
      The average person obeys whoever is in charge and believes whatever they're told by them. Power means authenticity for them.