Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Thread
- Thread starter Johnnyvee
- Start date
Continued from here to separate the topics: https://christisking.cc/threads/the-epstein-docs.614/post-103300
Have you, the reader, noticed this as well?
Again,
And again,
And again...
All over the web, people continue to rely on questionable evidence as "proof", including images and videos which turn out to be manipulated. This also goes for countless supposed screenshots, images of Tweets, audio of political interviews, videos of war, etc.
This is counter-productive to the intended message of the original communicator. Using fake images and videos to support an argument weakens both the believability of the argument AND the credibility of the person making the argument.
CiK and its members -- including myself -- are far from immune to the lure of these fakes. Indeed, by now we've all been fooled online, and in many cases, we were none the wiser about it. Fakery is only going to get better and better, which means more people getting fooled more often. This includes me and you.
If the accuracy of our perceptions is important, we can no longer take random data, especially images, audio, and videos at face value.
I'm confident that, in time, media and information-related AI will become a curse on humanity. "But it's saving so much time in my job!" That may be true for some people, yet it is already being used in ways too sick to describe here. Children in particular are incredibly vulnerable to both acute and chronic damage and exploitation.
Back when social media and online dating exploded, I came to the following conclusion (as did many others) about all things tech-related:
-->> Most people tend to be incredibly short-sighted. They have trouble thinking past the immediate benefits of 'new convenient things they like', to really consider their potential to generate longer-term problems. <<--
^ I've also realised that the above is especially true of people with not just low IQ, but also those with little to no stake in the future -- the athiests, the childless, etc. They are either not able, not willing, or not incentivised to think long-term.
Just on a psychological level, AI has already amplified cynicism and distrust on all sides.
A related quote follows from an article 'The Looming Shadow of Doubt: Why AI Makes Us Question Everything'
It's too late for quick fixes now
When it comes to judging information online, in time those who value objectivity will be forced to take a few steps back before making firm conclusions about anything.
There are no easy solutions, because it requires more time and effort to verify information. And sometimes this will mean we can only state with confidence that "I'm not sure" or "I don't know". On an individual level some baseline responses involves the following as a start:
^ Grandma will still need isolation from the internet to be safe, as fake video call scams are going to keep getting scary-good sooner rather than later.
And even more importantly:
Less finger waving, more chin stroking.
CIK readers know by now that a simple MSM / Google search is rarely enough to confidently determine anything, especially in cases of controversial topics. There has long been an insidious misinformation campaign waged through big tech to censor, manipulate, and bias search results in favour of certain ideologies, organisations and groups.
Example news article:
nypost.com
AI generation has made this even WORSE, because it encourages short cuts in cognitive decision-making and information gathering. This means even less critical thinking and diligent research. The mass manufacturing of NPCs has already begun.
Example research article:
So, despite the supposed mass amount of information online, getting to the bottom of any issue is now fraught with new dangers -- fakery the likes of which have never been seen in human history. The latest Mission Impossible movie, The Final Reckoning, even used similar themes in its opening exposition:
m.imdb.com
Conclusion
If dissidents want their claims to be taken seriously, they need to think twice before copy-pasting an image they found on a Telegram channel as evidence for their claim.
I hope that more posters continue to apply greater uncertainty and scepticism towards information they use in backing their own positions, not just towards positions from an opposing side.
Even a simple note like "this could be AI, I haven't verified the source" accompanying a post could add more tentativity and less finality to any conclusions drawn.
Happy sleuthing guys, and all the best.
Related discussions
See section 3 'Strength of Evidence' here:
Have you, the reader, noticed this as well?
Again,
And again,
And again...
All over the web, people continue to rely on questionable evidence as "proof", including images and videos which turn out to be manipulated. This also goes for countless supposed screenshots, images of Tweets, audio of political interviews, videos of war, etc.
This is counter-productive to the intended message of the original communicator. Using fake images and videos to support an argument weakens both the believability of the argument AND the credibility of the person making the argument.
CiK and its members -- including myself -- are far from immune to the lure of these fakes. Indeed, by now we've all been fooled online, and in many cases, we were none the wiser about it. Fakery is only going to get better and better, which means more people getting fooled more often. This includes me and you.
If the accuracy of our perceptions is important, we can no longer take random data, especially images, audio, and videos at face value.
I'm confident that, in time, media and information-related AI will become a curse on humanity. "But it's saving so much time in my job!" That may be true for some people, yet it is already being used in ways too sick to describe here. Children in particular are incredibly vulnerable to both acute and chronic damage and exploitation.
Back when social media and online dating exploded, I came to the following conclusion (as did many others) about all things tech-related:
-->> Most people tend to be incredibly short-sighted. They have trouble thinking past the immediate benefits of 'new convenient things they like', to really consider their potential to generate longer-term problems. <<--
^ I've also realised that the above is especially true of people with not just low IQ, but also those with little to no stake in the future -- the athiests, the childless, etc. They are either not able, not willing, or not incentivised to think long-term.
Just on a psychological level, AI has already amplified cynicism and distrust on all sides.
A related quote follows from an article 'The Looming Shadow of Doubt: Why AI Makes Us Question Everything'
Source
It's too late for quick fixes now
When it comes to judging information online, in time those who value objectivity will be forced to take a few steps back before making firm conclusions about anything.
There are no easy solutions, because it requires more time and effort to verify information. And sometimes this will mean we can only state with confidence that "I'm not sure" or "I don't know". On an individual level some baseline responses involves the following as a start:
^ Grandma will still need isolation from the internet to be safe, as fake video call scams are going to keep getting scary-good sooner rather than later.
And even more importantly:
Less finger waving, more chin stroking.
CIK readers know by now that a simple MSM / Google search is rarely enough to confidently determine anything, especially in cases of controversial topics. There has long been an insidious misinformation campaign waged through big tech to censor, manipulate, and bias search results in favour of certain ideologies, organisations and groups.
Example news article:
Google News’ bias skewed even further left in 2023 — 63% from liberal media sources, only 6% from the right: analysis
Media company AllSides’ latest bias analysis found that 63% of articles that appeared on Google News over a two-week period were from leftist media outlets last year.
nypost.com
AI generation has made this even WORSE, because it encourages short cuts in cognitive decision-making and information gathering. This means even less critical thinking and diligent research. The mass manufacturing of NPCs has already begun.
Example research article:
So, despite the supposed mass amount of information online, getting to the bottom of any issue is now fraught with new dangers -- fakery the likes of which have never been seen in human history. The latest Mission Impossible movie, The Final Reckoning, even used similar themes in its opening exposition:
Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (2025) ⭐ 7.4 | Action, Adventure, Thriller
2h 49m | PG-13
m.imdb.com
Conclusion
If dissidents want their claims to be taken seriously, they need to think twice before copy-pasting an image they found on a Telegram channel as evidence for their claim.
I hope that more posters continue to apply greater uncertainty and scepticism towards information they use in backing their own positions, not just towards positions from an opposing side.
Even a simple note like "this could be AI, I haven't verified the source" accompanying a post could add more tentativity and less finality to any conclusions drawn.
Happy sleuthing guys, and all the best.
Related discussions
Thought we had one, but didn't see one. We should have a thread to shows how often MSM lies.
See section 3 'Strength of Evidence' here:
Last edited:
Well done @Steady Hands I could not have expressed it any better myself, right down to the reference to the latest Mission Impossible movie.Continued from here to separate the topics: https://christisking.cc/threads/the-epstein-docs.614/post-103300
Have you, the reader, noticed this as well?
Again,
And again,
And again...
All over the web, people continue to rely on questionable evidence as "proof", including images and videos which turn out to be manipulated. This also goes for countless supposed screenshots, images of Tweets, audio of political interviews, videos of war, etc.
This is counter-productive to the intended message of the original communicator. Using fake images and videos to support an argument weakens both the believability of the argument AND the credibility of the person making the argument.
CiK and its members -- including myself -- are far from immune to the lure of these fakes. Indeed, by now we've all been fooled online, and in many cases, we were none the wiser about it. Fakery is only going to get better and better, which means more people getting fooled more often. This includes me and you.
If the accuracy of our perceptions is important, we can no longer take random data, especially images, audio, and videos at face value.
I'm confident that, in time, media and information-related AI will become a curse on humanity. "But it's saving so much time in my job!" That may be true for some people, yet it is already being used in ways too sick to describe here. Children in particular are incredibly vulnerable to both acute and chronic damage and exploitation.
Back when social media and online dating exploded, I came to the following conclusion (as did many others) about all things tech-related:
-->> Most people tend to be incredibly short-sighted. They have trouble thinking past the immediate benefits of 'new convenient things they like', to really consider their potential to generate longer-term problems. <<--
^ I've also realised that the above is especially true of people with not just low IQ, but also those with little to no stake in the future -- the athiests, the childless, etc. They are either not able, not willing, or not incentivised to think long-term.
Just on a psychological level, AI has already amplified cynicism and distrust on all sides.
A related quote follows from an article 'The Looming Shadow of Doubt: Why AI Makes Us Question Everything'
Source
It's too late for quick fixes now
When it comes to judging information online, in time those who value objectivity will be forced to take a few steps back before making firm conclusions about anything.
There are no easy solutions, because it requires more time and effort to verify information. And sometimes this will mean we can only state with confidence that "I'm not sure" or "I don't know". On an individual level some baseline responses involves the following as a start:
^ Grandma will still need isolation from the internet to be safe, as fake video call scams are going to keep getting scary-good sooner rather than later.
And even more importantly:
Less finger waving, more chin stroking.
CIK readers know by now that a simple MSM / Google search is rarely enough to confidently determine anything, especially in cases of controversial topics. There has long been an insidious misinformation campaign waged through big tech to censor, manipulate, and bias search results in favour of certain ideologies, organisations and groups.
Example news article:
Google News’ bias skewed even further left in 2023 — 63% from liberal media sources, only 6% from the right: analysis
Media company AllSides’ latest bias analysis found that 63% of articles that appeared on Google News over a two-week period were from leftist media outlets last year.
AI generation has made this even WORSE, because it encourages short cuts in cognitive decision-making and information gathering. This means even less critical thinking and diligent research. The mass manufacturing of NPCs has already begun.
Example research article:
So, despite the supposed mass amount of information online, getting to the bottom of any issue is now fraught with new dangers -- fakery the likes of which have never been seen in human history. The latest Mission Impossible movie, The Final Reckoning, even used similar themes in its opening exposition:
Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (2025) ⭐ 7.4 | Action, Adventure, Thriller
2h 49m | PG-13
Conclusion
If dissidents want their claims to be taken seriously, they need to think twice before copy-pasting an image they found on a Telegram channel as evidence for their claim.
I hope that more posters continue to apply greater uncertainty and scepticism towards information they use in backing their own positions, not just towards positions from an opposing side.
Even a simple note like "this could be AI, I haven't verified the source" accompanying a post could add more tentativity and less finality to any conclusions drawn.
Happy sleuthing guys, and all the best.
Related discussions
Thought we had one, but didn't see one. We should have a thread to shows how often MSM lies.
See section 3 'Strength of Evidence' here:
Sadly it all seems to be progressing as you've outlined. With so much information out there that's difficult to verify, my default response has been to adopt a glazed look of indifference. 90% of people seem to have already made up their mind, and wasting time trying to persuade them otherwise doesn't please me. Against the most relentless howlers, I've simply resorted to hitting the "Ignore" button.