>

you might be surprised, but there was a time information was checked before it was spread. At least in certain parts of the world.
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

It's still the information age - no promises were made about the veracity of that information. >

The veracity of information is accelerating in a direction. >

What we're witnessing is in direct consequences to that time our teachers told us not to use wikipedia >

mhm. Media literacy is an algorithm, not a list of acceptable sources and unacceptable sources.
I remember being taught that in middle school history, primary vs secondary vs tertiary sources, etc. And then the same teachers saying "don't use Wikipedia!"
I'm not a teacher, but I believe their intent was to force students to learn how to use libraries and encyclopedias instead of an internet search engine, it wasn't just "wiki bad". The first is still a valuable skill, but so was/is the second.
Oh well, here we are, with a bunch of people who'd be helped by learning how to google some shit now and then. >

We went from "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" to "This article on RealFreedomPatriot.net PROVES COVID vaccine turns us into slaves of our reptilian overlords!" >


We went from "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet" to

It's more like: we went from "don't believe everything you read on the internet" to "This is true. Source: Me, I'm a doctor." People say this crap all the time on Reddit and they receive hundreds and thousands of upvotes.
Amazing how quickly people now believe any random idiot on the internet. >

What's your sources though? >

Source: Me. I'm a Reddit scientist. >

I believe you, random idiot. >

I read somewhere that this age is starting to be thought of as a new dark age, except instead of a lack of access to knowledge from the past we are instead flooded with so much information that it achieves the same result. The core problem being that we have structured society to allow for such specialized knowledge that it becomes impossible for a common person to really, truly know if some information being given to them by a highly specialized doctor in a scientific field is true and the time required to verify everything you hear is not possible to give up. So there’s a glut of scientific research with often inflammatory, purposely contradictory bylines vying for your attention in fields you have no knowledge about and mixed in are snake oil salesmen publishing studies funded by agencies with their own agendas. It’s making us fatigued, distrustful, ignorant and very tribal in an economic system that is increasingly feudal. >

The only way out is going to be an AI 'angel' as imagined by the late great George Alec Effinger. 
Unfortunately, this will divide us into classes by AI type. At the top will be free agents with personalised AI. Below them will be people using minder AIs on contract from Google and facebook. They will be vulnerable to whatever bs their AI leaves them deliberately open to. Then you will have everyone too poor or angry to use AI. At the bottom of the scale people won't know what food or roads are safe this week, let alone how to vote. 
Imo the real driving force behind this nightmare will be the middle claases continuing to accept corporate AI, and not buying into personalised. The resulting pricing will keep personal AI expensive and well outside the reach of the lower end. >

The hell is a personal AI? >

AI that is built around the individual, with some basaic presumptions. Think actual Jeeves. Learns what you want to know, considers what you need to know, executes basic personal assistant tasks. In this context it also does tedious checks for things like fake videos, bias from media ownership, corrects for importance based on current events like terror alerts or global warming storms. 
This is distinct from corporate AI that like google search now does, actually works for advertisers. >

Who would make this AI? Who would train it? Who has this mountain of data available which would allow for such a sophisticated thing to exist. Also who decides what it deems biased? >

Strangely enough, I happen to have a version ready to go to market, fully defined. >

Source: Trust me, I'm a Doctor. >

In the good old days, you'd be able to see someone's face, clothes, mannerisms, etc.. when they talked. That way you could evaluate what they said within the context of who they were. 
So, some dude at the end of the bar is a total loser and a little nuts. Well, you could just laugh at his ravings because he was obviously not right in the head.
Your nutty aunt with no husband and twelve cats who talks a lot about Jesus? You know what she is all about so can easily dismiss what she says.
These people are still around, but their posts don't look any different than the posts from the NYT. >

They look a lot different than the posts from the NYT. But some people aren’t very good at spotting the differences. Others actively distrust actual sources of information and favor the familiar and comfortable style of disinformation. >

Makes you think that eventually we would come across something we can’t handle and it would kill us…oh hi robot overlord, no I wasn’t doing anything, please stop pulling my limbs off! >

Sometimes I wonder what's going to be the solution to this problem, and actually think perhaps we need AIs like in Metal Gear Solid 2, who are so committed to truth that they will silence anything that isn't. Like this was presented as some sort of evil, apocalyptic, dystopian scenario, but honestly? I find myself agreeing with the villains. It's not like the protagonist had any actual rebuttal besides "N-no!! You can't do that!! It's just...just wrong!!!!" Like if there were actually unbiased robots that could simply eradicate all lies, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. >

The solution to the problem is actually quite straightforward and that has been the case with any technology throughout history.
After a while societies realize that certain technologies can't be availabe to the public or need to be regulated.
But with this  technology it is more difficult since it has the power to change peoples minds,  the more complex technology becomes the less control we have over it, so it might not be a bad idea if we can make it clear that new techology should be dealt with  caution.
But apparently the world still hasn't realized this because AI and genetic editing tools just run around in the wild. >

I think the number one thing the information age has shown us is how unreliable information is. >

Definetly the wrong Age. Where the hell is my book. I need to go back *searches bag* please don't tell my I fogot my book! *starts to swet*
Fuck! >

It was said, back when Telegraphs were the new thing, that a good lie could spread from London to Bangkok, while the truth was still putting it's boots on. 
Nothing much has changed. >

Imo it became a control the information age. Much aledged disinformation is just legit information that someone doesn't want spread. Example... See something like Hunter Biden's laptop. Whatever you think of it, it was a real thing and was called disinformation by media and social networks until after the election... (This is fact, not disinformation lol) >

People that didn't believe in Moon landing somehow evolved into people who didn't believe in anything related to NASA or space, just because they were able to congregate into their own safe space on Internet and not be bullied for their stupid theories in real life. >

It's always been been the disinformation age, it's just that nobody realized earlier. People are now starting to wake up and calling out disinformation.