Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a rich, flaky crust

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                 

Obfuscation Station

Watson solves for 'fake news'
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

Judging by the inability of the public (both the general public, and the specific public supposedly in charge of newsworthiness) to tell the difference between news and 'fake news', we should let IBM's Watson AI automagically filter the news through a dark lens, producing any current rag, newspaper, magazine or news broadcast at a fraction of the cost.

Creating 'fake news' with a consistent inconsistent algorithm would have the intended 'unintended' consequence that actual people begin to recognize real (factual, pertinent, balanced, fair) news at a glance since it does NOT conform to the 'fake news' algorithm.

You know how you 'just know' things sometimes, as in 'gut instinct'? Your gut and brain are not aware of the lightning-speed communication that allows you to 'just know'. Watson's obfuscations would be so weirdly regularly irregular that the vagus nerve could instantly seize upon the 'real' news.

Note: Much of the 'real news' concerns actions of people who are good, kind, selfless, generous, smart and joyful. This 'news' appears not to be treated as news by most news outlets, as 'no news is good news' seems to be repeatedly interpreted as 'good news is not news'. Since good news stories rarely include bleeding (except perhaps in the case of beneficiaries of Good Samaritan's actions), the view of news as 'if it bleeds, it leads' will automatically mean that these stories are virtually unchanged... unless we tell Watson that 'good news is news', which would turn the entire industry inside out.

Additional unintended consequences may include: inability to stand in line at checkouts where periodicals are displayed; sudden outbursts of sardonic and/or derisive laughter; news outlet stock prices plummeting; sudden worldwide realization that people are generally fairly peaceful and groovy.

Sgt Teacup, Apr 04 2017

This site specializes in fake news http://www.theonion.com/
Perhaps we could get the folks at that site to help train Watson. [Vernon, Apr 04 2017]

[link]






       The way the news industry itself is very machine-like. From the feedstock of what is occurring that can be accessed and reported upon, it automatically optimises for most frightening result. The public gets an adrenaline 'hit' each morning (or each 15 mins) from checking the news to see how bad it is out there, and lo and behold, yes it is. That cycle of addiction is addictive, and forms a cycle. Not a bicycle, though.
Ian Tindale, Apr 04 2017
  

       Isn't there a difference between balancing good and bad news, ...and detecting lies and stories created just to fill the space?   

       What is it you want the robot to do?
popbottle, Apr 04 2017
  

       Just email the whitehouse for a comment on anything to determine if it's fake news or a reliable fact. If The Retard or any of his single brain celled advisors say that the item is fake, then you know with certainty that it's genuine, and of course vice-versa.
xenzag, Apr 04 2017
  

       // actions of people who are good, kind, selfless, generous, smart and joyful. //   

       What planet do these "people" live on, exactly ?
8th of 7, Apr 04 2017
  

       ^ Earth. We've just been suppressed.   

       ...for now   

       //this site specialises in fake news// cf this sentence is a lie
DDRopDeadly, Apr 11 2017
  

       The mistake starts from the fundamental assertion, oft used by politicians, that you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.   

       This view of reality is at demonstrated odds with both relativity and the uncertainty principle, leading to the inevitable conclusion that every observer of reality operates on their own set of facts.   

       Thus this is a futile struggle, with the odds of actually convincing nonbelievers being fairly miniscule, leaving only two options: 1. Coerce nonbelievers or 2. Don't coerce nonbelievers.   

       You are indeed entitled to your own facts. What you're not entitled to is to force your facts upon others.   

       That this makes government more difficult or perhaps impossible is actually designed into our system (the US System): that's why libertarianism if not outright anarchism always ran strong in our country.
theircompetitor, Apr 11 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle