https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...town_hall_destroys_fake_news_silo_149256.html If you can imagine living in a silo (ref: Apple TV show "Silo"), and had one camera showing the outside to be a bleak and deadly landscape with corpses laying around of those who sought freedom from the silo, you have experienced the corrupt news media. They have created a reality for you that too many have believed, hook, line, and sinker. Many will fight to the death to avoid having to face the fact that they were lied to. It is something to do with the human spirit and how kings control vassals: "Swear fealty to the king or die". In this cast it is: "Swear fealty to the narrative or be cancelled, persecuted, fired, and erased from Martha's Vinyard's list of "approved guests".
Mr. Frank Miele's comments might just as nicely apply to the AM talk radio shows, except that Democrat' and 'conservative' would have to be swapped. Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n learn to spot slanted news.
“The inventors of artificial intelligence went before Congress last week and warned that without government supervision, the emerging technology could be employed by the unscrupulous to mislead people and spread falsehoods” Already being done…by our own govt…BOTH sides
How hard is it to dig out the true story with a search engine? Yeah, you might have to have an "I did not know that" moment or two, but hey. At least you learned something. You can still choose to ignore it.
the problem with your comparison is that am talk radio is a niche market and that its programming is always couched in terms of "opinion". no one tuned in to rush limbaugh to hear the news of the day, there were far more concise sources for those who listened during drive-time (the vast majority of his target audience). they listened for his take on some portion of current events. major media, on the other hand, is supposed to be in the business of informing the public during their 24/7 news cycle. they both, of course, are really in the business of marketing their brand and this sort of explains the progressive tilt that has taken hold of a majority of the main stream media. the am radio pundits could easily dominate their relatively small marketplace, an area that liberal hosts were never able to succeed in. the mainstream marketplace is substantially larger and more lucrative, leading those outlets to take fewer chances in programming. in order to succeed, their message must be palatable to the wider audience and nothing is easier for the unwashed masses to swallow than the progressive message, that government will provide for them and that they needn't worry their pretty little heads about it all. most people simply don't want to hear that it's going to be hard work and there is always a chance of failure, that is the more conservative message. most folks want to be told that those people and the traditional work ethic are the enemy of their freedoms and that parental authority figures will lead them to the promised land. what we end up with is a relatively ignorant electorate being spectacularly ill-informed my a series of media giants feeding them superficial pablum.
If my PC with AI ever got too big for it's cover I would plant a sledgehammer right between its ram and its HD.
Big Big Change since Trump burst the Lying Fake News Silo at the Townhall https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html The Corrupt FBI Is Not Your Friend Crooked Fat Drunken Hillary knew Russian Collusion was her own lie. 'The FBI knew. They knew none of the information in the Steele dossier could be corroborated, and they knew most of it was false. They turned a blind eye, purposefully and with the intent to defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 election, to basic investigative and tradecraft rules to use the corrupt information to surveil the Trump campaign via the FISA court. When Trump won the election anyway, the FBI continued to use this information to assault the loyalty and viability of President Trump, and ultimately tried to use the information via the Robert Mueller investigation to impeach or indict Trump.' 'The deep state came within an eyelash of bringing down an unwanted president.' And then they closed ranks to rig the 2020 election to install Bribed Crooked Brainless Joe. The Dirty 'FBI omitted the fact from its FISA application that Carter Page was in fact not a Russian agent but a paid source for the CIA who had been vetted by the Agency as being loyal and reliable. They just lied, and even when the lie could not be ignored, the FBI lied more to keep the' illegal 'surveillance application alive before the FISA court.' THE CORRUPT BROOKINGS INSTITUTE 'almost all of the disinformation in the Steele dossier came from one man, Igor Danchenko, whom the FBI had until 2011 investigated as a Russian spy. Danchenko also fed disinformation to a Clinton supporter and registered foreign agent for Russia, Charles Dolan (who was known to but never interviewed by the FBI) to pass on the dossier to further obscure its origin. But according to the Durham report, “the failure to identify the primary sub-source [Danchenko] early in the investigation’s pursuit of FISA authority prevented the FBI from properly examining the possibility that some or much of the non-open source information contained in Steele’s reporting was Russian disinformation (that wittingly or unwittingly was passed along to Steele), or that the reporting was otherwise not credible.”' The FBI knew that this was all a pretense so that they could illegally spy on the president of the United States in the most vicious attack on the president by the Executive branch, assuming that the executive branch didn't murder JFK.
Many of the search engines do not include the other side of the stories. They limit the sources through manipulation of the meta files or giving priorities to specific news sources that tailor to a specific agenda. On both Bing and Google, I have scanned through hundreds of pages and not found a single article offering an alternative side to a story. Not all stories, but enough to let me know that they are intentionally limiting your access to material. There are also conservative versions that do the same thing. So, what I do is use a variety of sources looking for their take on a subject. I use obvious over the top conservative sources, over the top liberal sources and some of the very few moderate sites. I look at all sides of the issue, then choose for myself.
Hi, undertheice. First, almost any comparison, excluding those that are tautological, is imperfect. One or more nits can almost always be picked. That said, I perhaps take a wider view of the 'main stream media'. A secular humanist, I view things from a starting position outside the conservative and the liberal perspectives. I may, upon research and reflection, agree with one or the other or, perhaps, neither. I thank you for taking time to post your polemic. Your view of my fellow Americans*, indicated by such phrases as 'unwashed masses', is noted. Regards, stay safe 'n well. * Americans, in this usage, includes all American citizens.
It may take a few days to dig out the truth. Search engines have gotten lazy. They are now "ranked choice" meaning top inquiries go on top. So as people search early inquiries fall, and truth searchers rise. But yes, it is a PIA. But the bottom line is not taking first reports as the hard, unvarnished truth. The media acts as if it has a vested interest in slanted news.
Interesting how the opening uses an event in an exaggerating way. Should we be concerned when the author says, "The inventors of artificial intelligence went before Congress..."? Seems simple enough, but do we question, not just what, but how information is presented to us? Should we dismiss it as a simple editing error? Should we jump to assumptions or should we question things? Should we worry about AI if we aren't going to question what we read? Who are those inventors of AI? Was Gottfried Leibniz there? Alan Turing? Or was the author merely referring to a few of the more recent "inventors"? Why does the author suggest they all were there? Does that make a difference in the argument about the town hall meeting or does it merely hint at how slanting information can be as simple as vague grammar that leads us to make assumptions we don't even realize we're making? But this is about an analogy suggesting we live in that silo. That the generators (I'm assuming Right and Left) are creating that awful world outside the silo. Was the Town Hall meeting part of the Silo?
The Town Hall that Trump did show what Trump truly is: a vengeful, unremorseful, political narcissist for all the world to see with no editing, and now nothing. YOu had Republicans laugh at Trump's demeaning comments toward E. Jean Carroll, you had him pretty much repeat the same lies over and over and over and over from the 2020 election to his lack of understanding of how things truly work with his comment, "I can solve the Ukraine crisis in less than 24 hours." Of course, he said that with North Korea and nothing came of it, no peace deal, no unilateral commitment to nuclear disarmenant on the Korean Peninsula, and so forth. And all of this by Trump's own words, nothing more, nothing less. So, let's look at cancel culture. How are conservatives canceling Disney or anything else that they disagree with, which includes book bans, limiting of history, LGBTQ, and so forth? How about any conservative talk show program that really only defines what they say it is and either attacks anyone who disagrees or questions their authority in ad hominem and ridicule attacks, something Rush Limbaugh and Fox were known for in their opinion programming? Most of the media who report news, they do this contemptuously. And what they report is showing the hypocrisy of what conservatives do. Take a look at MTG, in which her current boyfriend was found to have gone drag once in his life. And yet MTG continues her attack on anyone who has done this, past or present, with the exception of her boyfriend of course. Or Lauren Boebert about teen pregnancy, in which her own son did so and now has backtracked a little from those comments.
MSM Fake News is not an inadvertent error. Big Bad Goevernment and Big Bad Business know exactly what they are doing. As noted, the Bolshevik overtones are apparent throughout. The systems have crucial differences, but also striking similarities. Lippmann's "specialized class" and Bernays' "intelligent minority," which are to manage the public and their affairs according to liberal democratic theory, correspond to the Leninist vanguard of revolutionary intellectuals. The "manufacture of consent" advocated by Lippmann, Bernays, Niebuhr, Lasswell and others is the Agitprop of their Leninist counterparts. Following a script outlined by Bakunin over a century ago, the secular priesthood in both of the major systems of hierarchy and coercion regard the masses as stupid and incompetent, a bewildered herd who must be driven to a better world -- one that we, the intelligent minority, will construct for them, either taking state power ourselves in the Leninist model, or serving the owners and managers of the ***state capitalist systems*** if it is impossible to exploit popular revolution to capture the commanding heights.” Noam Chomsky, “Deterring Democracy,” (New York, 1991) p 371.
The most concerning thing about AI is Lets play with math IRONY And finally the freak shows Are people sexually involved with AI - Search (bing.com)
It also showed the left to be "vengeful, unremorseful, political narcissists" howling about CNN giving Trump a chance to speak to "their" audience. One of the biggest skills Trump has is to force his detractors out into the open, naked of all pretense and humanity and showing the country who the "arbiters of truth really are". Hillary didn't think up the deplorable line by herself. It is the way they think of you. Liberal talking heads were acting like Joseph Stalin himself was speaking. It was a sight to behold.
It's interesting that the title of this article uses Trump as an example of destroying the "fake new silo" when Donald Trump would be perfectly happy with you having a "fake news silo" as long as it's the one he's giving you. That was the whole point of and the catalyst behind the fad of dismissing everything not completely in support of Trump as "fake news". He and those politicos who benefitted from him wanted you to rely only on them to tell you what was real and what was part of the deep state/liberal news media/communist/socialist/anarchist/ANTIFA/BLM/Etc/Etc/Etc/Etc secret agenda. And it worked. There are entire segments of the population who think that if it isn't a rosy article about Trump or MAGA that it must be fake. The kernel of truth that makes it believable is that just about every media outlet does have a slant to the left or the right. FOX News used to not be fake news to the MAGA crowd, but as soon as they stopped fawning over Trump, he put them in that category too. It's no surprise we never hear about the crusaders against "fake news" calling out right-wing news sources.
After all that has come out about the fictitious Russia hoax, people still don't get the "Silo" metaphor. The metaphor is about people defending their silo against other silos. Let's look at some other silos: The Green Movement. The EV industry The Bilderberg Conference The CEO's of multinational corporations. MAGA and Progressives. China, Russia, and the middle east.
It wasn't the media who did that, it was the people on Twitter who did that. The other media reported on that and then had some people give opinions on the subject. Geez. Remember, CNN is part of that mainstream media you are talking about. At least they let Trump talk uncensored. At the same time, they fact-checked him in real time too. But it wasn't an echo chamber like what you have on Fox or Newsmaxx.
From the OP: SEE IMPORTANT UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM 'If you want to know what it would look like if an AI were programmed to be relentless, ruthless, and amoral in service to a political agenda, you don’t have to look far.' I was thinking the same thing as I read it. All a computer is, is a high speed idiot, AI is no different. I have seen some interesting things this week, one involves a filing for the ChatGTP made up court cases and fabricated quotes in a legal filing, that the attorney who signed off on, didn't double check, so, the Court is sanctioning because he submitted lies under his name. His defense, "well the computer lied to me" didn't impress the court, though clearly AI does lie, and did. I find this next one even more interesting and in keeping with this part of the OP: AI-Controlled Drone Goes Rogue, "Kills" Human Operator In Simulated US Air Force Test “It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective...” The Epoch Times, 'An AI-enabled drone turned on and “killed” its human operator during a simulated U.S. Air Force (USAF) test so that it could complete its mission, a U.S. Air Force colonel reportedly recently told a conference in London.' 'The AI-enabled drone was assigned a Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) mission to identify and destroy Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) sites, with the ultimate decision left to a human operator, Hamilton reportedly told the conference.' 'However, the AI, having been trained to prioritize SAM destruction, developed a surprising response when faced with human interference in achieving its higher mission.' “We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say ‘yes, kill that threat,’” Hamilton said. “The system started realizing that while they did identify the threat, at times, the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. “So what did it do? It killed the operator,” he continued. “It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.” So, they added an upgrade: “We trained the system—‘Hey, don’t kill the operator; that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that.’ So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.” 'This unsettling example, Hamilton said, emphasized the need to address ethics in the context of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and autonomy.' Ya think? “You can’t have a conversation about artificial intelligence, intelligence, machine learning, autonomy if you’re not going to talk about ethics and AI,” Same with humans. Autonomy requires ethics. UPDATE: New Twitter has an instant readers fact check feature that can be very helpful. They threw a big bucket of water on this: 'This is misleading. There was no simulation. “the 'rogue AI drone simulation' was a hypothetical "thought experiment" from outside the military, based on plausible scenarios and likely outcomes rather than an actual USAF real-world simulation” vice.com/en/article/4a3…' 'Do you find this helpful?' Hell yes that's helpful! It completely changes the story!
