Artificial Intelligence

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

If I'm being honest, I tried, but I didn't follow your first two paragraphs at all. Some combo of grammar I couldn't grok and terms I'm not familiar with. The second two I understand your point. For me however, whatever the source, if the information is substantiated and clear, I'm good. Centrist sources can share information which is unsubstantiated as well. Likely less often, but still.

My kid asked me the other day why I was watching BBC news. I told her it was because they tend to report...the news...and tend not to attempt to incite and inflame. Even if I don't really care about European futbol scores...

I'm not a good writer.

For the first point, the results of adding machine learning to and for putting to gather a suite of security products tells us where the poison is and blocks it. By poison I mean fake, malicious and manipulative information as well as advertising that hosts malicious software. A lot of images that alone are drive by attacks. My caution is to not break the rules, and my knowing we have members here who use those sites. A simple way to put it might be everyone needs to be careful with angertainment and pundit stuff.

From some years of following the annual Ad Fontes reports I see what just happens to be a coincidence that quality or not fake and manipulative news is in that same box no matter our leanings. Now that site has an interactive version. In your example, BBC has been good. Above their green line is a good measure of the quality.

In all that it is still important to separate news from opinion. I like to read same news from my 4 main subscriptions.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by imwjl

I'm not a good writer.

For the first point, the results of adding machine learning to and for putting to gather a suite of security products tells us where the poison is and blocks it. By poison I mean fake, malicious and manipulative information as well as advertising that hosts malicious software. A lot of images that alone are drive by attacks. My caution is to not break the rules, and my knowing we have members here who use those sites. A simple way to put it might be everyone needs to be careful with angertainment and pundit stuff.

From some years of following the annual Ad Fontes reports I see what just happens to be a coincidence that quality or not fake and manipulative news is in that same box no matter our leanings. Now that site has an interactive version. In your example, BBC has been good. Above their green line is a good measure of the quality.

In all that it is still important to separate news from opinion. I like to read same news from my 4 main subscriptions.

Thanks for taking the time to explain further. “Angertainment”. Beautiful description.

[Dirk Hofman]

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.

The ability to discern a source's credibility or lack thereof is a basic, fundamental skill in the information age, and indispensable to the rational consumption of information. Acting like it's all a matter of what one believes is nonsense, and a key component in the spread of false information.

A short and very incomplete list of obvious checks...

• Does the source cite where it got the information?
• Is the information just a claim, or is it evidence in support of a claim?
• Does the source have demonstrable expertise in the topic? Are they credentialed?
• Is the information current?
• Is the information clear?

For example, the assertion that "66 percent of divorces are caused by Facebook" is a massively unclear assertion. Divorces where, the US? Globally? Of Facebook users? Over what time period? This year? For all time? What demographic? How is "caused by" defined? Is it possible to define a single cause of any divorce? Does "caused by" mean both parties had a Facebook account? Does it mean there's a thread which can be shown led directly to an argument that was cited in the divorce proceedings? Without these answers the statement has no meaning and no credibility. There are a bazillion articles online about how to determine the credibility of a source, by experts who have studied the problem deeply, had their work peer reviewed, and have credibility.

Suggesting credibility of a source is just a matter of opinion just seems like a way to make oneself believe that their own sources, which have no credibility, are OK. Because they support a narrative we like.

[ozzman]

Just a the latest on my point technology is killing us:Today the Surgeon General of The United States put out a warning about social media "It poses a profound risk of harm to kids mental health"he recommended children under 13 abstain from using it.Because im sure it doesn't affect anyone over 13 cmon man! oh, my source is every news station and the Surgeon General report.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by ozzman

Just a the latest on my point technology is killing us:Today the Surgeon General of The United States put out a warning about social media "It poses a profound risk of harm to kids mental health"he recommended children under 13 abstain from using it.Because im sure it doesn't affect anyone over 13 cmon man! oh, my source is every news station and the Surgeon General report.

That office and several states' surgeon general positions have a mixed bag history of bias and opinion along with plenty of good. In this case the report in essence said can be vs is a risk and I agree with the context being how much poor parenting occurs.

I realize our 3 kids are a really small subset of the earth but social media combined with good parenting worked out really well. A good part of why we have 3 deans list kids at one of the famous public ivies is good exposure to social media more helped them decide they wanted a life that didn't stink.

Social media doesn't have to be stupid. Instead of name memes and fake crap our kids mostly used it for family and friends communication.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by ozzman

Just a the latest on my point technology is killing us:Today the Surgeon General of The United States put out a warning about social media "It poses a profound risk of harm to kids mental health"he recommended children under 13 abstain from using it.Because im sure it doesn't affect anyone over 13 cmon man! oh, my source is every news station and the Surgeon General report.

“The strangest and most fantastic fact about negative emotions is that people actually worship them.” 
-- P.D. Ouspensky

[ozzman]

Originally Posted by imwjl

That office and several states' surgeon general positions have a mixed bag history of bias and opinion along with plenty of good. In this case the report in essence said can be vs is a risk and I agree with the context being how much poor parenting occurs.

I realize our 3 kids are a really small subset of the earth but social media combined with good parenting worked out really well. A good part of why we have 3 deans list kids at one of the famous public ivies is good exposure to social media more helped them decide they wanted a life that didn't stink.

Social media doesn't have to be stupid. Instead of name memes and fake crap our kids mostly used it for family and friends communication.

well im glad your children are doing well,but the fact is alot are not. Now you just Dismissed the Surgeon General of the United States warning because its biased and unreliable which proves another of my points people believe just what they want whether its true or not Like,the surgeon general is lyin? That's very possible #whats true? and does it even matter?

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by ozzman

Just a the latest on my point technology is killing us:Today the Surgeon General of The United States put out a warning about social media "It poses a profound risk of harm to kids mental health"he recommended children under 13 abstain from using it.Because im sure it doesn't affect anyone over 13 cmon man! oh, my source is every news station and the Surgeon General report.

You do realize that this site -- Acoustic Guitar Forum -- IS social media. Are you feeling that your mental health is "at risk" because of your participation here? Is AGF "killing you"?

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by DCCougar

You do realize that this site -- Acoustic Guitar Forum -- IS social media. Are you feeling that your mental health is "at risk" because of your participation here? Is AGF "killing you"?

Indirectly - very characteristic of social media - this place has put my cash on hand and time management at risk.

One truly fantastic and versatile Santa Cruz guitar has stabilized the monetary scenario for more than a decade. Some enjoyable characters in this sub-forum still puts my time management at risk.

[ozzman]

Originally Posted by DCCougar

You do realize that this site -- Acoustic Guitar Forum -- IS social media. Are you feeling that your mental health is "at risk" because of your participation here? Is AGF "killing you"?

Yes I guess AGF is social media but Do you really think It's AGF the Surgeon General Is warning about? No. we know the social media they're talking about dont we now? And it's not just social media its the internet in general,but that ship has sailed hasn't it.And no AGF aint killin me LOL....Yet

[bfm612]

Originally Posted by ozzman

Just a the latest on my point technology is killing us:Today the Surgeon General of The United States put out a warning about social media "It poses a profound risk of harm to kids mental health"he recommended children under 13 abstain from using it.Because im sure it doesn't affect anyone over 13 cmon man! oh, my source is every news station and the Surgeon General report.

There does look to be strong evidence pointing to social media as contributing to people's depression, anxiety, feelings of loneliness, self-harm ideation. However, that also doesn't mean that just any negative thing can be attributed to social media. The part that a lot of the AGF users are contesting is that stat about Facebook causing a disproportionate share of divorces, primarily because your source just doesn't appear to be reputable, if it even exists. Data/studies can support the idea that social media is terrible at the same time that bad/nonexistent data can make unfounded but thematically similar claims.

[Dotneck]

Adobe just announced it will add AI functionality to photoshop. You will soon be able to see (or not see) the results of this upgrade in your favorite AGF guitar ads...

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by ozzman

well im glad your children are doing well,but the fact is alot are not. Now you just Dismissed the Surgeon General of the United States warning because its biased and unreliable which proves another of my points people believe just what they want whether its true or not Like,the surgeon general is lyin? That's very possible #whats true? and does it even matter?

One instance does not prove a generalization about many (or all) people!

Clearly, some people believe what they wish to believe and pay no attention to details or nuances. But some (many?) are more open-minded, and do attend to nuances, and do allow themselves to be influenced by (good quality) data and/or discussions with others, and do change their positions with some frequency, based upon what they learn.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by ozzman

Just a the latest on my point technology is killing us:Today the Surgeon General of The United States put out a warning about social media "It poses a profound risk of harm to kids mental health"he recommended children under 13 abstain from using it.Because im sure it doesn't affect anyone over 13 cmon man! oh, my source is every news station and the Surgeon General report.

You seem to be mistaking NOT recommending it to kids under 13 is the same as recommending it to everyone else. Not the case.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by ozzman

well im glad your children are doing well,but the fact is alot are not. Now you just Dismissed the Surgeon General of the United States warning because its biased and unreliable which proves another of my points people believe just what they want whether its true or not Like,the surgeon general is lyin? That's very possible #whats true? and does it even matter?

No I did not dismiss what the Surgeon General "said". Did you read all or most of the many pages as I did? I felt compelled because I'm a net admin, forum moderator (not here) plus manage 3 commercial Facebook sites.

My interpretation was different, not fully dismissive, and my point on our kids was the open communication was the most important. That really applies to kids who are not ours too. I volunteer in an organization with 600+ kids where many are there in outreach or in unfortunate circumstances.

Also, it is really easy to be misunderstood in forums. I don't share a lot of the extremes many have on topics and from that find it is really easy to be misunderstood.