11
What are your thoughts on a on-device model that "fact-checks/determines bias" on comments and posts? (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/general@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Have had a few pet projects in the past around RSS aggregation/news reading, which could fact-check the sources/article while reading, also determining the biases from the grammar and linguistic patterns used by the journalist for the article. Same could be applied to comments.

Wonder if such a feature had value for a reader app for Lemmy? I feel a definitive score is toxic. But, if it were to simply display the variables to look out for it can help make a objective decision yourself?

Another application of this, is also pulling just the objective statements in the articles for faster reading.

Edit: More explained in this comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/1524807

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (10 children)

Anyways, I'd like to say we are kind of agreeing. Not sure what caused that aggression. I do think of things in a product sense, but that is the byproduct (no pun intended) of my learning environment. If we are talking about philosophy, I should definitely read up some more. But, the capital T truth understandings majorly came from my observations of David Foster Wallace's book "This is Water". I will expand on it and circle back to improve my writing so it communicates my thoughts better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 3 years ago (9 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (7 children)

    Figure out what the truth is for you and leave that shit alone.

    This actually got me thinking quite a bit and was hoping you'd expand on it. Is it more directed to building things that are not driven by a personal truth?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 3 years ago (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    Yeah, it's more of a reflection rather than a solution

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    Slowly removing passion. Its interesting seeing how things I would feel would increase passion (simply because it creates/saves more time), may have the complete opposite effect and thus going against the whole intention. I ignore this side a lot of the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Passion as in, spending the time to look into the thoughts of the paper and spending the time to observe each student's work fairly to help the student improve on their writing. Maybe the plagiarism checker is wrong about something, and makes you skip reading through that section. But, infact the student may have laid out some interesting thoughts that should have received positive reinforcement.

    Our overall discussion reminded me of this piece by Aaron Swartz aswell, thought it would be nice read to suggest: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/anders, the specific piece is called "Confront reality"

    Edit: or the whole series is quite good http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rawnerve

    Edit2: some wording

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    OK, so you're looking for a way to figure out punditry, what the pundits say that is fact and that is just their opinion. I think that this type of goal is entertaining. What you're looking for is to create software that singles out journalists (they are usually the pundits). It looks easy watching TV, it's harder to with software. But you're right in that regard. Journalists aren't what they used to be. They are free to have an opinion and they are viewed as fact reporters. It's problematic. Humans are now better at figuring that out than AI. But if you can figure it out, that's great.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent