Congrats! What has it been like developing on the AVP?
Readit Newsthrowaway115 commented on Show HN: I built an interactive cloth solver for Apple Vision Pro youtube.com/watch?v=kpD2J... · Posted by u/lukko
> "How do we stop people from sharing (what I deem to be) fake news?" is the wrong question. The right question is "How do we give people the tools to identify fake news?" If you give people the tools and they still spread what you deem to be fake news, then you've done what you can. Tough cookies for you.
When you teach people to recognise fake news they will be able to recognise your fake news. What you want is to cut people from enemy fake news (or truth, they are enemy, it doesn't matter) so they will believe everything you say while enemy can't influence them.
I don't want that, but I see your point. I would rather our population have a healthy immune system where bad ideas just don't survive, than to have us live as Bubble Boy, cut off from the rest of the world forever.
It's not about belief or control. If you're harming the social organism by spreading verifiable falsehoods (vaccines cause autism) then you should be rooted out and treated like the cancer you're choosing to be. I can't yell fire in a theater. I'm somehow alive despite that censorship. People need to grow up.
Where can I read about the constitutional rights of "the social organism"?
>We take away your freedom and put you in jail.
The ACLU has defended literal neo-Nazis and white supremacists right to rally and share their ideas on several occasions. Sounds like you would disagree with them, and that people should be imprisoned for having disgusting and hateful ideas. Fortunately, you're wrong.
Don't conflate words with actions like hurting someone. There are very narrow restrictions on speech, mostly around calls or threats of imminent violence. But those are extremely rare cases, and they're not what you are broadly describing.
There is a stark difference between "fake news" and "difference of opinion that I don't agree with".
"fake news" typically amounts to false rumors, amplifying unprovable/unsubstantiated claims. That's what needs to stop, and what is greatly damaging discourse.
I would be delighted to read about opposing opinions, provided they are presented + supported by provable facts.
>I would be delighted to read about opposing opinions, provided they are presented + supported by provable facts.
Opinion
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.The majority doesn’t care, you can give the best tools to identify, they won’t trust them or ignore them
You're being hyperbolic. Community Notes on X are an example of these tools, and they are not ignored or distrusted from what I've seen. If your tools are poor, make better tools. But also, as a first principle, accept that some people won't believe what you want them to believe, no matter what. That doesn't mean you get to start trying to control them, because you got frustrated.
You can identify fake news to people, and unless someone from their "tribe" identifies it, they will just say that the party identifying it is fake.
So then you need to come to terms with people rejecting what you want them to believe. Some people won't believe you no matter what. Does that mean you get to reach for another tool, like force, or censorship? No, it means you need to accept that you don't control people.
"How do we stop people from sharing (what I deem to be) fake news?" is the wrong question. The right question is "How do we give people the tools to identify fake news?" If you give people the tools and they still spread what you deem to be fake news, then you've done what you can. Tough cookies for you.
Too many people get very angry that people share things they disagree with, and then start talking about clamping down on communication. No, sorry, but your ideas lost. People are allowed to think and share things that make you angry. If your views aren't mainstream, there's a reason for that. "Fake news" is only a tiny part of the equation. If you pick up that censorship weapon, that we all implicitly agree to not use, you will not be the last to wield it.
OpenAI is working the exact same way drug dealers working... give it away to students for free at parties, make them get addicted to it.
Since we're making silly comparisons, charitable organizations also give things away for "free", making the recipients somewhat dependent on them. There's plenty to criticize OpenAI about, but why associate them with drug pushers?
Wow, the bill attempts to make the case that nuclear shelter is like other building codes and housing standards. It's a stretch.
1. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01676R0037000...