"Don't talk about the assassination attempt"

[Maxmars]

This image

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...4660_n.jpg]

is an altered version of this image.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...sferir.jpg]

Obviously.

Did you comment without seeing the image?

Yup, I commented without seeing that image.... who published it I wonder?

Who "decided" to submit that photo as a part of the historical record?  Was that Meta?
And, without having access to them both, how does the "AI" know which is which? 

Someone has to curate the images, was it a human that said.. this (smiling image) is an image of the event?
I'm sorry... but I still feel a disconnect between reality and what we are presuming to be a programming tool that allegedly reports facts and reality.

[RuchardHurt]

Yup, I commented without seeing that image.... who published it I wonder?

Who "decided" to submit that photo as a part of the historical record?  Was that Meta?
And, without having access to them both, how does the "AI" know which is which? 

Someone has to curate the images, was it a human that said.. this (smiling image) is an image of the event?
I'm sorry... but I still feel a disconnect between reality and what we are presuming to be a programming tool that allegedly reports facts and reality.

This disconnect you feel is very real. Here soon even watching events live will if not already be doctored to confuse and manipulate.
I can't count how many times images get shared that are proven fakes but people just don't care.
Confirmation bias is a mental illness.

[ArMaP]

Yup, I commented without seeing that image.... who published it I wonder?

Apparently, it was first published on "Threads" (never heard of that) and "X".

https://www.threads.net/@canadianguy56/post/C9aRR4FP737
https://www.threads.net/@ben.rockson/post/C9aTU7aJVQN
https://x.com/daviddunn177/status/1812463663778783381

Who "decided" to submit that photo as a part of the historical record?  Was that Meta?

As far as I understand it, Meta had nothing to do with it, I don't even know if someone posted that image on Facebook or not.

And, without having access to them both, how does the "AI" know which is which?

Pattern finding and matching has been used for a long time and is one of the most common AI uses.

Someone has to curate the images, was it a human that said.. this (smiling image) is an image of the event?

Yes, the "fact checkers" are human, they flag the images as fake. AI looks at other images and tries to see if they are the same image that was flagged as fake. That's what failed in this case, the AI didn't consider smiling/non smiling as a difference and said the original photo was fake.

I'm sorry... but I still feel a disconnect between reality and what we are presuming to be a programming tool that allegedly reports facts and reality.

A programming tool? What are you talking about?

[Waterglass]

Good one on the FAKE photos. 

I have a Samsung Android Galaxy Smart Phone with Google. For several weeks Google  never had anything about the Trump assassination attempt within their top ~ 15 or so headline stories. Actually to date they never recognised it as if it never happened. 

Whats your position on it as to me its outright deliberate censorship. To Congress they said it was an error in their algrithum. More lies in my opinion.

[ArMaP]

Good one on the FAKE photos. 

I have a Samsung Android Galaxy Smart Phone with Google. For several weeks Google  never had anything about the Trump assassination attempt within their top ~ 15 or so headline stories. Actually to date they never recognised it as if it never happened. 

Whats your position on it as to me its outright deliberate censorship. To Congress they said it was an error in their algrithum. More lies in my opinion.

Saying it was an error on their algorithm is a lame excuse, as it means that nobody noticed the error in previous occasions or there were no previous occasions, which means it was a brand new algorithm that was not tested as it should.

The different results in different countries are also interesting.

[l0st]

I've been using Brave search lately with the AI component turned on just to see how the AI response compares with the results. I have found 3 or 4 instances of the AI stating something as fact about a subject that is a complete lie. I've also found several instances where the links returned in the AI portion of the output appear to be fictitious.

I read the earlier statements about AI "hallucinations" in fact being "lies". That is my gut reaction to the phenomenon as well. However, I do think I have to agree that "hallucinate" is perhaps more accurate. What the user is effectively doing is asking the "AI" (LLM) to return a short dissertation on a specific topic. The AI dutifully searches its coffers and writes up a short essay about the topic asked. Mission accomplished - ? Well, the trouble arises when the model doesn't contain data (or has had the data restricted from use) that matches that query, but it still needs to complete the task, so it makes stuff up to fill in the blanks. Its not the LLM's fault it doesn't have/can't access the data necessary to answer the query. It doesn't think, it's a computer program.

I was looking for the last Republican Mayor of Phoenix the other day and couldn't find a direct answer anywhere but Bing. I found that curious, so I fired up a local copy of GPT-3 and asked it and it said it didn't know. I then asked who the mayor was by name, and it returned the guy's info and said he was a Democrat - and he was not! So, its troubling that these datasets are incomplete and in many cases willfully so. It also sure makes you wonder what is going on with Maricopa County elections that you can't find a list of mayors of Phoenix and their party affiliation together anywhere on the Internet.

[Maxmars]

It's all Big Tech's experiment to run the internet algorithmically... except they suck, (and allow the marketing departments do all their thinking for them.)

And you know who is ready to jump in and take advantage of the slow-motion car crash that is "AI?"  Go on, take a guess... I'll wait.

[Waterglass]

Saying it was an error on their algorithm is a lame excuse, as it means that nobody noticed the error in previous occasions or there were no previous occasions, which means it was a brand new algorithm that was not tested as it should.

The different results in different countries are also interesting.

Thank you as I respect your comment !