• stevedidwhat_infosec
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Yep you got me!

    Was leading onto this side of the debate, but basically our collective knowledge, hell our collective experiences are not objective. Our assumptions, mistakes, wordings which result in different interpreted meanings, etc all contribute to some level of disinformation.

    Now let’s not be as nit picky and accept that some detail fudging isn’t the end of the world and happens frequently. We can cross reference each others’ accounts but even that only works to an extent.

    Whole cultures might bare witness to an event and perceive it to be about x y or z, whereas the next door neighbor might see it completely different.

    AI to me really isn’t that far off from the winners being the ones to write the history books, or that strange or unexpected events naturally cause human brains to recollect them in incorrect detail and accuracy.

      • stevedidwhat_infosec
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Not quite what I meant, I was merely pointing out that we should be cognizant and of how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.

        All in all, central points of authority are inherently vulnerable to misinformation. I personally think communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.

        Why settle to see the rainbow for your own favorite color when there’s such an amazing and valuable spectrum available. So very digital of us

          • stevedidwhat_infosec
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I’m admittedly a little confused on how you might still think this. Could you explain your train of thought for how I think that (what’s the bridge between the two quotes you’re using?)

            To be clear, objective fact is obtainable by reproducibility (scientific process namely) but that doesn’t really work as well for “objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)

            I think a lot of people blur the line between the event itself and the rationale/explanation behind it. That’s really the crux of the problem as I see it and am trying to bring awareness to.

              • stevedidwhat_infosec
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Well no, I can’t. That’s because that snippet was in reference to non-reproducible things, like history really. Science is Queen of objectivity in that you can take the exact same steps and physics ensures that things happen again in the same way

                With history, it’s about interactions between complex, ever-changing human psychologies. It’s about decisions made that might not necessarily be restricted to laws like physics, but maybe what you had for breakfast that day, or what your first interaction with another human was like.

                Now technically, maybe one day in the future we could use physics and insane measurements of humans to predict behavior and what not like we can with say a chemical reaction, but that’s pretty far out and I’m not sure we’d want to do that (despot being driven to do it anyway because someone else will and they’ll use it for harm)