Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Monday, May 25, 2026

AI or human: which is best for politics?

Context

AI is an improved way to interface with computers. Instead of old-fashioned searching and sorting through to find what’s relevant, AI can do a lot of the sorting real fast. It helps a lot to learn how to word questions with some precision. Once hits come back in, one has to check to see that AI’s summary is accurate. It can get things wrong. One thing AI is terrible at is correctly quoting things. In my hands, it hallucinates far more often than it gets quotes right. In my posts, I never us a direct AI quote about anything unless I’ve confirmed the quote is exactly the same in the cited source.

AI is not conscious. The logic of that is personally compelling. Not surprisingly, a minority of philosophers of mind, neuroscientists, and AI researchers do think current or near‑term AI systems might be or could soon become conscious. In 1980, philosopher John Searle posited his Chinese Room thought experiment. That reasoning described why AI is not and cannot be conscious. Chinese Room logic says that a computer executing a program cannot have a mind, understanding, or consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program makes the computer behave.

The machine can respond to Chinese input, but it doesn’t understand it

Political arguments from AI vs old-fashioned searches vs making it up

Too much of the rhetoric usually coming from Trump and MAGA demagogues is mostly either factually false or logically flawed. The demagoguery can come from intentional lies, deceit, or manipulation, or from bullshit. BS is rhetoric where the speaker or writer doesn’t care about being factually true or rationally coherent. The intent of BS is to persuade or manipulate, regardless of how untrue or irrational the speech might be. In general, Trump/MAGA rhetoric is often demagogic, manipulative, or systematically indifferent to truth, usually very hostile to inconvenient fact and truth. Link, link, link

An irrational MAGA argument that sometimes pops up is that content generated for political arguments by AI is crap that’s not worth consideration or a good faith response. The fatal flaw in that argument is that the same political arguments can be generated either by old-fashioned searching/sorting or by AI searching/sorting. What matters is the quality of content that is used from either way to prepare political arguments. AI search materials need to be checked and found to assert what the search results say, but when that is done the end product is What counts is the argument and sources it is based on, not how well the argument was vetted, checked for facts, unreasonable bias, and sound reasoning, and then presented.

In my experience, MAGA defenders in disagreement with me or other MAGA critics are usually unable to either (1) rationally defend their reasoning or opinions, or (2) show their versions of reality or facts are real and found in reliable info sources. When presented with inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning, the default MAGA response is mostly deflection, attacks on the messenger or criticizing the argument as based on lies, crackpot reasoning, or untrustworthy info sources. MAGA demagogues can and sometimes do criticize good faith but inconvenient, evidence- and reason-based arguments as generated by AI. In my experience, none of those demagogue criticisms of AI has ever said why AI cannot be trusted in ferreting out political arguments. If critics don’t specify why AI is unreliable, it’s a dodge and not a substantive critique.

The obvious reason the demagogues will not state why AI is unreliable is because it can be highly reliable. AI can be quite reliable in the hands of someone careful to vet what it turns up in searches. AI is a tool that helps people locate and summarize sources which the searcher then independently verifies. Usually experienced demagogues/propagandists don’t engage on the merits. They just say an argument is based on AI and therefore the search results are unreliable, even when the information sources the search turned up are vetted and cited. That is solid evidence of the bad faith that MAGA demagoguery and demagogues routinely operate in.

Qs: Are political arguments based on information that AI searches turn up no good because AI found and described the info sources? If AI searching is no good, what is better, old-fashioned searches and personal sorting, or just relying on things that are made up like most MAGA demagogues often do?

No comments:

Post a Comment