The logical end of the ‘Solution to bad speech is better speech’ has arrived in the age of state-sponsored social media propaganda bots versus AI-driven bots arguing back

  • mea_rah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Have you seen any tweet this bot generated that would contain misinformation? Because I haven’t.

    What is the context for Iraq WMDs? I haven’t seen it anywhere in the article?

    • zephyreks
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is anyone arguing that, at the time of the Iraq War, it wasn’t considered a “truth” in America that Iraq was developing WMDs and that anything to the contrary was considered disinformation?

      • mea_rah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So is the bot not pointing out obvious lies with links to factual data or what is your point? Can you link me to an example of bot using shaky arguments?

        And the WMD claims stood on shaky legs from very beginning, many countries like Germany opposed use of force in Iraq. Perhaps we’d benefit from bot correcting false narratives in real time had this technology been available at the time.

        • zephyreks
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The bot doesn’t know what’s “real” or not though - it’s a large language model, not a model of the real world. All it knows is what it’s been told in its training data.

      • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s because they aren’t.

        Chemical weapons cause severe agony, but tend to kill a limited number of people.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          According to the UN:

          Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) constitute a class of weaponry with the potential to:

          • Produce in a single moment an enormous destructive effect capable to kill millions of civilians, jeopardize the natural environment, and fundamentally alter the lives of future generations through their catastrophic effects;

          • Cause death or serious injury of people through toxic or poisonous chemicals;

          • Disseminate disease-causing organisms or toxins to harm or kill humans, animals or plants;

          • Deliver nuclear explosive devices, chemical, biological or toxin agents to use them for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.

          So, they were WMDs

          • zephyreks
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Iraq had those same stores of chemical weapons since the 1980s and was in the slow and arduous process of dismantling them (it had dismantled something like 90-95% of its WMDs by 2003 and was not stockpiling replacements). Given the lack of new production, many of the chemical weapons supposedly in Iraq’s stockpile would have turned harmless due to the short shelf life of chemical weapons.

            By and large, people used this imagined idea that Iraq was still developing nuclear weapons as the justification for the invasion. American media ran stories about how aluminum tubes “used for uranium enrichment” were being imported by Iraq. American media brought out Iraqi defectors of questionable credibility who talked about Iraq’s burgeoning nuclear capability. American intelligence claimed that Iraq was actively seeking nuclear weapons development. Of course, all of these claims were entirely false.

          • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            By this definition, 9/11 proves that a jumbo jet is a WMD. I don’t know if I can call a jumbo jet a WMD.

            • orrk@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              9/11 only had its effect because they hit the twin towers, chemical weapons can kill entire areas

              • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t understand the point you’re making. If airplanes hitting a building can do the same damages chemical weapons…

                Chemical weapons can kill entire areas just like planes hitting buildings. I’m a licensed pilot.

                • orrk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  what killed people was the damage to the buildings not the planes themselves, if the twin towers had been a chemical plant (especially one making something like phosgene, mustard gas or chlorine gas) in the middle of NY, the death toll would have made 9/11 look like a wet fart

                  • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The chemical plant cannot be a WMD.

                    Places cannot be WMD. This is inherent in the word weapon a weapon is not a place. The w in WMD makes it not a place

              • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Didn’t need to kill a millions. I’m just saying that the jet hitting a building kills as many as a chemical weapon can.

                Chemical weapons not going to kill more people than 9/11.

              • zephyreks
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                How the fuck are 14 155mm shells filled with mustard gas from 1980 and a few kilograms of expired growth media going to kill millions of people?