You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Jiro comments on ClearerThinking's Fact-Checking 2.0 - Less Wrong Discussion

23 Post author: Stefan_Schubert 22 October 2015 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 01 November 2015 04:52:16PM 2 points [-]

If you're against vaccines, but you've seen the fact-checker bot be correct 99 other times, then you might give credence to its claims.

That's subject to Goodhart's Law. If you start judging bots by their behavior in other cases, people will take advantage of your judging process by specifically designing bots to do poor fact checking on just a couple of issues, thus making it useless to judge bots based on their behavior in other cases.

(Of course, they won't think of it that way, they'll think of it as "using our influence to promote social change" or some such. But it will happen, and has already happened for non-bot members of the media.)

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 03 November 2015 05:14:25AM 1 point [-]

Heck, Wikipedia is the prime example.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 02 November 2015 03:05:00PM 1 point [-]

I don't know why someone downvoted this, unless it was out of the political motivation of desiring to promote such changes in this way. It seems obviously true that this would happen.