Artificial Intelligence

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

You should cite your source for this (or any of your) statement(s). Sounds like something one might read on Facebook, ironically.

I dug around for a couple minutes and found several mentions of this "statistic", all published by law firms specializing in divorce. Maybe some kind of effort to own mindshare on the topic. Maybe just clickbait. They all cited the study found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...k_Use_to_Blame

You can download the PDF and read/search it. You will not be able to find the number 66, not any mention of the percentage of divorces cased by Facebook, or anything remotely like it in their conclusions...or anywhere in the study. Nothing.

That said, the study did offer the following...

Conclusion
To conclude, our results indicate that high levels of Facebook use, when mediated by Facebook-related conflict, significantly predict negative relationship outcomes. The current study adds to the growing body of literature investigating predictors of Internet use and relationship outcomes. Lastly, the current study may be a precursor to further investigation of whether Facebook use attributes to the divorce rate, emotional cheating, physical cheating, and breakups.

Seems intuitive, but let's have a look at the study's methods...

Methods
Participants were 205 Facebook users. To obtain participants, the researchers updated their own Facebook profile statuses with an online survey link created on www.qualtrics.com. The convenience sample included, but was not limited to, college-aged students. The researchers included a preface to the survey link with a description of the study. The preface included a statement informing participants that participation in the study was voluntary. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 82 years old (M=33, SD=14.26). Most participants (89%) were Caucasian, 7% were Hispanic, 2% were African American, and 2% were Asian American. The majority of participants (62%) were female.

So 205 people were sampled (which is fine) by sending out a link...on Facebook. Now I'm no expert in test methodology, but that sounds almost comically biased to find people who are having issues because of Facebook.

These topics are difficult enough. AI is a huge step change in the tech and social landscape to be sure. Tough to discuss, but impossible in the face of misinformation.

Originally Posted by ozzman

I should post a source for any of my statements? Um humHere's another statement with no source. in my opinion people are less happy,content and settled since the tech revolution.If you think they are please post a source

I'm glad you posted it's your opinion now, and that Dirk pointed out really poor survey methodology.

Beyond our own 3 young people doing really well, I see it beyond that and with some scale. There are 600 (more than 2x that Facebook sample) in a youth teaching organization I'm in. Most of them do really well but that's not a sample like where I work. At work we have hundreds in their teens and into tech/college school age. Most of them do well too. Gen Z are rather shining stars in our chain of stores and cafes. They really help with troubles my boomer and the younger gen x have.

I'm lost on other stuff said in these posts too. I'm not getting a lot of nonsense or scare mostly reading quality publications and knowing the difference between news and editorial.

Some reactions are understandable. This year I've done far more travel than recent years. In more common road/business travel 2-3 star places I catch more TV and some of the local newspapers that are out. In 30+ stays I keep seeing a jaw dropping difference between that and my subscriptions to good publications. Just like that shows me so many people in poor shape, they are consuming news to match it.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by ozzman

I should post a source for any of my statements? Um humHere's another statement with no source. in my opinion people are less happy,content and settled since the tech revolution.If you think they are please post a source

I think the point was to get you to reconsider regurgitating nonsense you read online. People doing just that is a huge part of the reason for arguments stemming from Facebook. The irony was stunning.

I agree with your opinion.

[bfm612]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I think the point was to get you to reconsider regurgitating nonsense you read online. People doing just that is a huge part of the reason for arguments stemming from Facebook. The irony was stunning.

I agree with your opinion.

I think asking for support for a bananas-sounding statistic on Facebook-caused divorces is pretty reasonable. You're not required to, but the stat will just still come off as an outrageous claim.

This is actually similar to the danger that people think AI poses. The more convincingly AI can generate falsities (let's say, a video or even a live, interacting AI-generated Tom Hanks incriminating himself on the crazy trafficking stuff circulating among conspiracy nuts), the more difficult it will be to arrive at what's real and what's not.

We're still at a relatively good time when we can ask people to cite references. The doomsayers (who might not be wrong) say we're going to be in a much worse position as AI gets better. We can ask for receipts, but those receipts will be very easy to forge.

[Mr. Jelly]

It will be manipulated, exploited and abused. It will not be regulated well. Society hasn't come close to figuring out how to deal with or the repercussions of social media yet. As all future predictions go there will be things that no one imagined occurring because of it. Of course, there will be good things and because of them society or the powers that be will turn a blind eye to aspects of it. It is a reality therefore a fact of life we will all have to deal with. Then there is a fact that computers screw up all the time. We were told they don't make mistakes. Blame the mistakes how you will it still comes down the computers are not always correct.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by bfm612

I think asking for support for a bananas-sounding statistic on Facebook-caused divorces is pretty reasonable. You're not required to, but the stat will just still come off as an outrageous claim.

This is actually similar to the danger that people think AI poses. The more convincingly AI can generate falsities (let's say, a video or even a live, interacting AI-generated Tom Hanks incriminating himself on the crazy trafficking stuff circulating among conspiracy nuts), the more difficult it will be to arrive at what's real and what's not.

We're still at a relatively good time when we can ask people to cite references. The doomsayers (who might not be wrong) say we're going to be in a much worse position as AI gets better. We can ask for receipts, but those receipts will be very easy to forge.

It also makes me think of the habit my dad gave me before he died young. He used to get even my mail top competing newspapers. The instructions were read same news from both before you ever read opinion. It still applies.

My professional work is in infrastructure and InfoSec so the validity issue comes up a lot and knowing how public key encryption works tells me we do have ways to check validity many people don't know or think about. That's already something used in security systems I administer.

Every day or every console login I get tremendous amounts of poisonous stuff flagged very often it is stuff some will post right here. I have and can craft reports that show me the amount of poison - malicious ads, fake, nation state propaganda - differences with some very popular sites. I already know users and computers where the bad habits are. That is also a really good example of what most of machine learning and AI will be.

[ozzman]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I think the point was to get you to reconsider regurgitating nonsense you read online. People doing just that is a huge part of the reason for arguments stemming from Facebook. The irony was stunning.

I agree with your opinion.

well google Facebook causing divorce and you get what I quoted. it was a study by some American matrimonial lawyers association. Nobody knows if its true. even if it is some won't believe it because they don't want to.they believe just what they want to be true."living their truth" I know I don't have time to spend investigating every little thing to ensure its true or not.So now we're back to everyones truth aint the same.When I took a test in school I answered Columbus discovered America and got it correct.it was the truth.now its not.Lief Erikson now,but I don't believe it.do you.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by ozzman

I should post a source for any of my statements? Um humHere's another statement with no source. in my opinion people are less happy,content and settled since the tech revolution.If you think they are please post a source

Yes in fact you should be able to substantiate a sweeping declaration type statement. Even though it has become very PC and fashionable, to offer such statements with either no, or questionable sourcing .

Now obviously when stated as opinion, it is not nearly as incumbent to have a valid source ---- While arguably even opinion "SHOULD" be based on valid sourcing, there is inherently not the same onus for validity, as when stated as if fact.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by ozzman

well google Facebook causing divorce and you get what I quoted. it was a study by some American matrimonial lawyers association. Nobody knows if its true. even if it is some won't believe it because they don't want to.they believe just what they want to be true."living their truth" I know I don't have time to spend investigating every little thing to ensure its true or not.So now we're back to everyones truth aint the same.When I took a test in school I answered Columbus discovered America and got it correct.it was the truth.now its not.Lief Erikson now,but I don't believe it.do you.

Actually it is The American Academy Of Matrimonial Lawyers which ironically enough can be found on FB https://www.facebook.com/Divorce.CustodyLawyersAAML/


And here is what they actually said :

"About 66 percent of divorce evidence found online comes from Facebook, making it the primary online source, according to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Being a primary source of "evidence" used in 66 % of divorce , is not even in the same category as causation , and is a far far cry from FB "causing" 66 percent of divorce ..

While no doubt that using FB may contribute to conflict in a relationship it is likely the relationship had already lost it's rudder before it bounced off the Facebook rock and then ran aground .

[ozzman]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes in fact you should be able to substantiate a sweeping declaration type statement. Even though it has become very PC and fashionable, to offer such statements with either no, or questionable sourcing .

Now obviously when stated as opinion, it is not nearly as incumbent to have a valid source ---- While arguably even opinion "SHOULD" be based on valid sourcing, there is inherently not the same onus for validity, as when stated as if fact.

well,if you don't believe stuff is true,just disregard the "source" as not dependable or invalid and continue to believe your source.but be advised your source may not be valid.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by ozzman

well google Facebook causing divorce and you get what I quoted. it was a study by some American matrimonial lawyers association. Nobody knows if its true. even if it is some won't believe it because they don't want to.they believe just what they want to be true."living their truth" I know I don't have time to spend investigating every little thing to ensure its true or not.So now we're back to everyones truth aint the same.When I took a test in school I answered Columbus discovered America and got it correct.it was the truth.now its not.Lief Erikson now,but I don't believe it.do you.

Consistent and hard to argue with data sources including court records over decades tell a different story on divorce. At least for the US the pattern is fewer of them for decades.

A noticeable amount of kids are indeed troubled but school admittance, graduation, and a shift to more students in STEM and professional areas are really good evidence that social media isn't doing so much harm. Kids are not dumb and the bad in it drives many to be sagacious young people.

Something beautiful about machine learning or AI is illustrated in the debates here. Two platforms we use in our small enterprise - one InfoSec, one BI (business intelligence) - get us more info we can call truth. The queries and algorithms are easily applied to bigger and more amounts of data.

Without going into something complicated or controversial like cultural relativism, what we can do in these areas - InfoSec, food production, weather, logistics, is more true than ever. It applies to other industries too.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by ozzman

well,if you don't believe stuff is true,just disregard the "source" as not dependable or invalid and continue to believe your source.but be advised your source may not be valid.

Actually the notion that:: "there is your truth and there is my truth and are both equally valid or invalid " is a myth.

Now getting back to the OP I agree that AI obviously has the potential to be a threat ( which is true of all tech science and medicine ). and I assume that some regulation will likely be necessary .

But I do not know enough about AI to make a cogent statement about what that should or even might be ..

[J Patrick]

I recently had an interesting conversation with a young fellow working on AI for a company here in Oregon....he expressed his concern and concurred when I said if you're not a little alarmed you're not paying attention.

[ozzman]

Good points here everyone good conversation! Lets congratulate everybody for keepin it on the rails.My final thought is "Strange days indeed,most peculiar moma" op out.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by ozzman

I should post a source for any of my statements? Um humHere's another statement with no source. in my opinion people are less happy,content and settled since the tech revolution.If you think they are please post a source

Nah. You should just make a modest effort to distinguish between your impressions/opinions from statements that have some research support (as you have above). Throwing around discrete numbers/statistics without any indication where the number comes from doesn’t add much to a discussion, and can often be a distraction.

And IMO, it is hard to assess the accuracy of a statement as general “people are less happy…since the tech revolution.” I, for one, am happier since the tech revolution. But my increased happiness doesn’t have anything to do with technology and what it adds (and subtracts) to my life. There are many established contributors to happiness and unhappiness, including income disparities, worries about the future (war, pandemics, climate change), social isolation, etc. of the ones I have mentioned, only the last might be related to technology.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by ozzman

Good points here everyone good conversation! Lets congratulate everybody for keepin it on the rails.My final thought is "Strange days indeed,most peculiar moma" op out.

Exiting with a John Lennon lyric. Nice!