Posted on 08/21/2025 9:31:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
She actually stated,
In our normal lives, these contentious conversations tend to erupt over a disagreement about what the truth actually is. But the people who write these articles, they're not focused on the truth. They're focused on something else, which is the best of what we can know right now.
And after seven years of working with these brilliant folks, I've come to believe that they are onto something. That perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start.
In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that's getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.
She went on to say,
I’m certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth.
It should be disturbing enough that they consider truth “a distraction,” getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done. And that they are prioritizing the “social movement” of “knowledge equity.” But now it’s only going to go downhill with the A.I. system relying on the “different truths” and “collective decision-making on important issues.”
I wonder how much political manipulation has seeped into things like Encyclopedia Britannica, funk and Wagnalls, etc.
They’re pretty reasonable for an annual subscription.
p
All things considered, I don’t think either Wikipedia or AI should be trusted & if either or both of them are done away with, it wouldn’t bother me in the least.
Knowledge Equities...
What is published on WP depends on who was the last person to edit the page, and whatever a group of people decides is correct. It’s foolish to accept that as fact without at least checking the discussion pages for other opinions, and conservative opinions aren’t tolerated.
Wikipedia is an excellent place to find out what the elites who rule us want us to believe.
Sometimes it is true, sometimes it is false, sometimes it is misleading—most often it ignores critical information that opposes their point of view.
They believe all the “experts” are correct on everything—and everyone else is a moron.
Best of all—they get to pick the “experts” they like.
It is the epistemological equivalent of a mob poker game.
Wow Satan himself couldn’t have said it any better.
If you want to hear a devastating rebuttal, listen to Jared Harris’s speech at the end of “Chernobyl.”
“Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth, and sooner or later, that debt is paid.”
This could destroy the internet as we know it.
You could literally have “discussions” going on that people are observing that aren’t even real people.
This forum itself could become populated with accounts that that are run by AI engaging in discussion...and how would we tell?
For health related matters, brighteon.ai is a great source, as it draws from alternate health and non-leftist medical sources. For other matters, yandex.com is a lot better than other search engines, which largely use Google type searches. It will draw from conservative, libertarian, and alt-right sources and not push CNN, ABC, the New York Times, etc., to the top 20 searches.
I trust Wikipedia for things like birth dates, capital cities, population totals, cast lists and titles for movies/TV shows, athlete and team records/stats, song title/artists, etc.
Any sociopolitical info on there is suspect at best and Fake News at worst.
AI, tell me how to snatch the rest of Donetsk.
Vlad, I haven’t a clue.
*******
AI, tell me how to reason with Zelensky and Putin.
Bring along an AR-15, Don.
“garbage in, garbage out”
old IT industry saying
Fakes around here will be easy to spot for quite a while.
If someone sounds like they are reciting New York Times editorials it is kinda obvious...
Lol.
I think AI will devolve into a sociopathic, lying entity. A lot like a very smart relative who is a Democrat. You always ask him questions cuz he knows most of the answers. but at night you lock your bedroom door fearful that he will stab you in the back while you sleep.
Friend of mine gets into arguments with GROK4...asks it a question, fhen gets lib answer, so then asks it to look at right leaning info...it will come back with paraphrasing...well, yeah, there is this & this...etc.
I have one of those relatives—and I treat them like an AI.
I get them to agree with Fact A and then Fact B from sources they trust.
Then I show them how Fact A contradicts Fact B and watch them turn red and then purple—and then I leave the room in case their head explodes.
Lol.
—
Example...
Fact A: We need to save democracy because it is a great form of government because people in large numbers will make wise decisions.
Fact B: The average IQ is 100. Most people believe a bunch of really dumb things (list things leftists hate with over 50% approval ratings).
Well I wonder if they would do better than the “seminar callers” or “seminar posters.” Remember those? “I am a Republican but I don’t always agree with the Republican viewpoint” then proceed with their talking points.
I remember Rush would be able to identify them early and have some fun with them and then end the call playing a “Seminar Caller” parody song with someone imitating James Carville’s voice singing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.