Lies will just take a different form, such as with rhetoric and statistics.
Technology is not the be all, end all solution to universal connectedness, agreement, and consciousness. Technology is a means of communication, it is the stone tablet in an age of oral storytelling.
Without reading the article very carefully, I have to say, lying has arguably become even more prevalent in some areas. Internet communities, even small ones that hold together like a family, are plagued by trolls who would create alternate accounts, turn people against eachother and spread rumours. The most talented of those people can break entire communities apart. I've seen enough of that. No, lying is bound to stay.
Interesting article. If anyone hasn't read it, James Halperin's Truth Machine (1997) is still one of my favorite books. It is an interesting take on technology which can reliably determine veracity and what could happen if it has a backdoor.
I definitely miss the days in which I could convince people that Walt Disney was frozen in a secret compartment at Disney World without somebody Snopesing me on their iphone.
Just explain that Snopes was set up specifically to quash the truth about Walt, all the correct things on the site are there just to lend credibility to their cover-up of Disney's cryogenics.
Or it would make pre-planned lying easier.
"Check my fit bit. And my phone. And my watch. I was lying in my bed, not participating in high-speed autonomous car racing."
EDIT: "That traffic camera has my twin"
Whatever you lose in the capability to lie for immediate personal merit you gain in the ability to stroke the political and emotional biases of people through distortion and disinformation in self-serving echo chambers that they have no desire to escape from.
The use of statistical learning to create targeted user experiences will only exacerbate this. It works because one generally doesn't read because they like to learn, so much as learn what they like to read.
The web is a formidable vehicle for sowing confusion and ignorance, as much as it is a place to obtain knowledge.
I think you have captured the nub of this issue. I read the article and then shared it among my Facebook friends after seeing it here. There, my tagline was "I'd like to see this happen, and that's the truth, but I don't expect this to happen, because I see Internet technology used every day to spread lies around." Truth-seeking is HARD, because it disturbs personal prejudices, and many people don't make the effort to seek truth even when verified facts are spoon fed to them. (I should probably write that last part of that last sentence as "everybody prefers factually incorrect prejudices to verified facts at least some of the time".)
>Whatever you lose in the capability to lie for immediate personal merit you gain in the ability to stroke the political and emotional biases of people through distortion and disinformation in self-serving echo chambers that they have no desire to escape from.
Sorry, how did 'the ability to stroke the political and emotional biases of people through distortion and disinformation in self-serving echo chambers' not exist (and in even worse form) when you could lie?
I think that's the point. Without lying, political and social structures of humans break down.
Lying is literally what enables us to work and live together. Even something as simple as telling a friend or coworker that that thing they do isn't that annoying counts as lying.
Lying/deception is practiced by virtually all life forms, both for constructive and destructive purposes. It is a necessity for the resilience of complex organizational behavior.
People are "taught" to lie since the childhood and passed as "good manners". Ex:
>How are you feeling.
>Good.
Or my favourite:
>Wow, good job!
People learn by example, and they see these lies (in their technical definition) as acceptable and even encouraged behaviour and hence follow. Then we have parents lying to their children all the time, and then later when they learn the truth they will likely carry on their tradition of lying (aka Santa, Monster Under The Bed ... God) to their kids because, hell, my parents did it.
I guess I don't understand the argument's construction then.
Lying could almost, literally be defined as: 'the ability to stroke the political and emotional biases of people through distortion and disinformation in self-serving echo chambers'.
The OP is claiming that eliminating lying actually increases the occurrence of distortion and disinformation (through an undisclosed mechanism).
To me, this would seem to be contradiction: eliminating the bad thing actually increase the occurrence of the bad thing.
If one can technically verify level of belief, then one can both insist upon it in coercive capacities (the NSA does not want any employee who has any doubts about its holy mission), and tune arguments for it in non-coercive capacities (The breakfast cereal marketing department's learning algorithms will be able to test jingles against a fully verifiable 100% accurate human model).
Blowing things off and consenting because you just want to move on, ceases to be an option once it's detectable. Instead, the opponent can iterate on strategies of persuasion until the job is genuinely done. This doesn't produce an easily swayed populace for the same reason an unsecured computer doesn't produce an egalitarian botnet host: It is in the interest of every memetic attack to install defenses against other memes. Will you tell your new girlfriend, that her brown hair looks nice when your preexisting bias in favor of blondes has been hyped up into a whole obsessive fandom by your last girlfriend, who jealously insisted on the mental calcification of True Belief?
Mindreading in the form of an accurate lie detector of some sort is a large portion of mind control, once you extrapolate it to routine applications throughout society.
.
More specific to the article's point:
Datamining truth verification is more likely to be a problem for us due to the asymmetry: It benefits large organizations and only large organizations. It benefits the people with the best AI to search your history and only the people with the best AI to search your history. The NSA is already capable of performing a background check, utilizing the whole of its resources constructively, that would point out any doubts you have; But we are not similarly capable of deducing facts about the NSA.
> This doesn't produce an easily swayed populace for the same reason an unsecured computer doesn't produce an egalitarian botnet host
On a tangent, I find this idea fascinating. What would produce an egalitarian botnet host? A Xen instance that spawns a bunch of WinXP VMs each networked such that they can only be reached by a random /16 CIDR block?
Yes, if one can do that -- and I'm not sure there is any reason to believe that it is even possible to achieve, in an absolute/practical meaning of 'technical' [I'll just add, that I believe that people may believe any number of impossibilities and attempt to act in accordance with those beliefs] --, then all manner of horrors may be possible.
To your point about the article:
Does the NSA do anything special? Anything that others could not achieve (in, the 'technical' sense)?
I'm not sure visibility is all that's required. You have to be able to accurately predict the entire future timeline and somehow prove that your prediction is accurate.
Usually there is a reason people believe what they believe. It's called motivated reasoning. For instance I know my religion is full of shit, but it's a very important part of my identity. Therefore I must find reasons to continue to believe in it and defend ideas that it puts forward.
Well lets take this into the extreme. Lets assume you adopt a new opinion that a life is only worth it's economical value. The amount of mental work to integrate that believe in your current set of opinions (by changing them) is huge. So you'd rather not do it.
Another example: the lie your company is on a good path. Knowing accepting it is on a bad path, means a lot of work.
Socially: Admitting you were wrong makes you look incompetent. If you were wrong then, why should anyone listen to you now?
Physiologically: Changing ingrained opinions on which many others are formed probably requires a good deal of brain re-wiring and may require solid plasticity. I'm unsure how much of a problem this is for the brain.
I guess there are a lot of other costs, but I can't come up with more.
> Admitting you were wrong makes you look incompetent.
It certainly makes you feel like you look incompetent. I wonder how much it makes others judge you as incompetent. Perhaps this issue has been researched? (I'm guessing that it might matter a great deal how one was wrong; there are different ways to be wrong, and different levels of wrongness.)
Many of the terms we associate with "the end of the world" have meanings which amount to "revealed truth": revelation, apocalypse, enlightenment, catastrophe.
The upshot of each is that your previous understanding of the world is overthrown. It's not so much that it's the world which has ended as your worldview.
Mental models are difficult and expensive to construct. It takes an entire childhood and adolescence for humans, arguably a fair bit of adulthood as well.
Leaving those comfortable confines, even where they're wrong, is pretty distressing. We'll often work hard to re-shoebox reality into models to which it fits at best poorly instead.
Technology won't kill lying. Despite there are clear and distinct punishments in society for those who murder, people still don't resist their impulses or think they're can out smart the system (some do, some don't).
Technology will never stop those who have retaliatory power from lying. Janitor catches CEO lying about making a specific sales deal go through versus CEO catching janitor lying about when he clocked in. Strong intra-team asymmetries exist.
So the article talks about how technology is making it harder to lie which I think in some ways it's true but in others it's making it easier to bend the truth and sometimes it even makes it easier to lie. For instance many of the folks that are against vaccinations will regularly quote "studies" that are published in "journals" that are all made up to sell someone a book or some natural remedies. Even worse is all of the information out there about GMOs with some of it being good science, some bad and some places where they mix it all up. Of course a normal person who didn't grow up to become a scientist isn't going to be able to separate between all of the good and bad information every time (especially since even scientists themselves can't always separate it if it's in a different field).
I have to wonder if an ultimate goal will end up being similar to Peter F Hamilton's Gia Field idea in his books where it essentially links people together in a way that's not easy to break and it forces you to feel everyone's emotions around you. So if you are trying to lie to someone, hurt them or steal their stuff it's going to be obvious not only to the victim but everyone around you and the perpetrator will feel his victim's emotions. Naturally this is a pretty crazy idea that's probably over 100 years away from being able to happen but still the article kinda reminded me of it.
> For instance many of the folks that are against vaccinations will regularly quote "studies" that are published in "journals" that are all made up to sell someone a book or some natural remedies.
I think one of the pressing necessities for the future is a way to categorize the "quality of science". This is seriously lacking at the moment.
I can't wait for this to happen. I cannot stand lying, and it's my belief that a good majority of issues people face in their lives come down to lying or deceit (lying by omission).
How refreshing it would be if everyone was utterly sincere to each other.
IMO, never going to happen, at least not 100%. If I believe in something that is not true, and my belief in that belief is true and sincere, am I lying?
I should have used only sincere then. It's been shown that people can convince themselves that something they initially knew was false is true just by repeatedly lying to themselves.
Judging by those with Aspergers I know, they are as close to that as you'll get.
It leads to dysfunctional behaviors because people don't want to earnestly told that their face is ugly when they first meet someone and every time after that.
Honesty can be brutal.
This also leads to another issue: when the data is centralized like this, those who oversee it can never be held to the level of accountability they hold others to.
> people don't want to earnestly told that their face is ugly
This says more about society than honesty. If we collectively quit valuing physical beauty (you know -- something you're born with and can't control), that kind of statement wouldn't be an issue. Say "I'm bad at basketball" and no one cares. Say "I'm unintelligent" and everyone does.
And, of course, your fitness tracker could betray you: If you tell someone you're heading to the gym, but end up laying around watching bad reality television instead, the data it collects will reflect your laziness -- or, as the Pennsylvania case suggests, perhaps even more serious deceptions.
The whole reason you gave your friends access to your fitness tracker data was so they could help motivate you. That's not a betrayal. Additionally, the Pennsylvania suspect voluntarily gave her username and password to the police, without which they would not have had access to intra-day historical data.
While I'm running I often let me brain wander in all sorts of directions to pass the time. One thing I came up with was a detective/murder story where the murderer used their fitness tracking application as an alibi, by convincing someone else to run their regular route and discreetly swapping/attaching their tracker to that person. They then do the murder while the other person creates the alibi unknowingly by running their regular route and creating a digital signature of the running.
The case is solved by a brilliant detective combining with a precociously smart computer guy who downloads the raw data from the gps tracker and determines that while route and speed are typical, the data betrays it was someone else because of the difference in gait, recorded by the accelerometer that was built into the device for an upcoming feature not yet released by the tracking company. This is either proved in a courthouse scene where the accused has to run across the room, or by deception by secretly tagging both the accused and their unsuspecting alibi runner and comparing the data.
49 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 32.6 ms ] threadTechnology is not the be all, end all solution to universal connectedness, agreement, and consciousness. Technology is a means of communication, it is the stone tablet in an age of oral storytelling.
The use of statistical learning to create targeted user experiences will only exacerbate this. It works because one generally doesn't read because they like to learn, so much as learn what they like to read.
The web is a formidable vehicle for sowing confusion and ignorance, as much as it is a place to obtain knowledge.
Sorry, how did 'the ability to stroke the political and emotional biases of people through distortion and disinformation in self-serving echo chambers' not exist (and in even worse form) when you could lie?
Lying is literally what enables us to work and live together. Even something as simple as telling a friend or coworker that that thing they do isn't that annoying counts as lying.
That's actually a pretty tough indictment of human nature, if true.
>How are you feeling. >Good.
Or my favourite: >Wow, good job!
People learn by example, and they see these lies (in their technical definition) as acceptable and even encouraged behaviour and hence follow. Then we have parents lying to their children all the time, and then later when they learn the truth they will likely carry on their tradition of lying (aka Santa, Monster Under The Bed ... God) to their kids because, hell, my parents did it.
The list goes on and on.
Or maybe I'm just a sad cynic.
Lying could almost, literally be defined as: 'the ability to stroke the political and emotional biases of people through distortion and disinformation in self-serving echo chambers'.
The OP is claiming that eliminating lying actually increases the occurrence of distortion and disinformation (through an undisclosed mechanism).
To me, this would seem to be contradiction: eliminating the bad thing actually increase the occurrence of the bad thing.
If one can technically verify level of belief, then one can both insist upon it in coercive capacities (the NSA does not want any employee who has any doubts about its holy mission), and tune arguments for it in non-coercive capacities (The breakfast cereal marketing department's learning algorithms will be able to test jingles against a fully verifiable 100% accurate human model).
Blowing things off and consenting because you just want to move on, ceases to be an option once it's detectable. Instead, the opponent can iterate on strategies of persuasion until the job is genuinely done. This doesn't produce an easily swayed populace for the same reason an unsecured computer doesn't produce an egalitarian botnet host: It is in the interest of every memetic attack to install defenses against other memes. Will you tell your new girlfriend, that her brown hair looks nice when your preexisting bias in favor of blondes has been hyped up into a whole obsessive fandom by your last girlfriend, who jealously insisted on the mental calcification of True Belief?
Mindreading in the form of an accurate lie detector of some sort is a large portion of mind control, once you extrapolate it to routine applications throughout society.
.
More specific to the article's point:
Datamining truth verification is more likely to be a problem for us due to the asymmetry: It benefits large organizations and only large organizations. It benefits the people with the best AI to search your history and only the people with the best AI to search your history. The NSA is already capable of performing a background check, utilizing the whole of its resources constructively, that would point out any doubts you have; But we are not similarly capable of deducing facts about the NSA.
On a tangent, I find this idea fascinating. What would produce an egalitarian botnet host? A Xen instance that spawns a bunch of WinXP VMs each networked such that they can only be reached by a random /16 CIDR block?
>If one can technically verify level of belief
I'll just let that one hang there for a second.
Yes, if one can do that -- and I'm not sure there is any reason to believe that it is even possible to achieve, in an absolute/practical meaning of 'technical' [I'll just add, that I believe that people may believe any number of impossibilities and attempt to act in accordance with those beliefs] --, then all manner of horrors may be possible.
To your point about the article:
Does the NSA do anything special? Anything that others could not achieve (in, the 'technical' sense)?
Perhaps there is some real cost to changing your opinion. What is that cost, and how can it be lowered? Or raised, for that matter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
Well lets take this into the extreme. Lets assume you adopt a new opinion that a life is only worth it's economical value. The amount of mental work to integrate that believe in your current set of opinions (by changing them) is huge. So you'd rather not do it.
Another example: the lie your company is on a good path. Knowing accepting it is on a bad path, means a lot of work.
And as we know humans are lazy by design.
Physiologically: Changing ingrained opinions on which many others are formed probably requires a good deal of brain re-wiring and may require solid plasticity. I'm unsure how much of a problem this is for the brain.
I guess there are a lot of other costs, but I can't come up with more.
It certainly makes you feel like you look incompetent. I wonder how much it makes others judge you as incompetent. Perhaps this issue has been researched? (I'm guessing that it might matter a great deal how one was wrong; there are different ways to be wrong, and different levels of wrongness.)
The upshot of each is that your previous understanding of the world is overthrown. It's not so much that it's the world which has ended as your worldview.
Mental models are difficult and expensive to construct. It takes an entire childhood and adolescence for humans, arguably a fair bit of adulthood as well.
Leaving those comfortable confines, even where they're wrong, is pretty distressing. We'll often work hard to re-shoebox reality into models to which it fits at best poorly instead.
Technology could have killed lies long ago. It didn't. Why would it start now?
Technology will never stop those who have retaliatory power from lying. Janitor catches CEO lying about making a specific sales deal go through versus CEO catching janitor lying about when he clocked in. Strong intra-team asymmetries exist.
"Chemtrails", global warming, evolution, historical events, etc.
I have to wonder if an ultimate goal will end up being similar to Peter F Hamilton's Gia Field idea in his books where it essentially links people together in a way that's not easy to break and it forces you to feel everyone's emotions around you. So if you are trying to lie to someone, hurt them or steal their stuff it's going to be obvious not only to the victim but everyone around you and the perpetrator will feel his victim's emotions. Naturally this is a pretty crazy idea that's probably over 100 years away from being able to happen but still the article kinda reminded me of it.
I think one of the pressing necessities for the future is a way to categorize the "quality of science". This is seriously lacking at the moment.
How refreshing it would be if everyone was utterly sincere to each other.
It leads to dysfunctional behaviors because people don't want to earnestly told that their face is ugly when they first meet someone and every time after that.
Honesty can be brutal.
This also leads to another issue: when the data is centralized like this, those who oversee it can never be held to the level of accountability they hold others to.
This says more about society than honesty. If we collectively quit valuing physical beauty (you know -- something you're born with and can't control), that kind of statement wouldn't be an issue. Say "I'm bad at basketball" and no one cares. Say "I'm unintelligent" and everyone does.
The whole reason you gave your friends access to your fitness tracker data was so they could help motivate you. That's not a betrayal. Additionally, the Pennsylvania suspect voluntarily gave her username and password to the police, without which they would not have had access to intra-day historical data.
The case is solved by a brilliant detective combining with a precociously smart computer guy who downloads the raw data from the gps tracker and determines that while route and speed are typical, the data betrays it was someone else because of the difference in gait, recorded by the accelerometer that was built into the device for an upcoming feature not yet released by the tracking company. This is either proved in a courthouse scene where the accused has to run across the room, or by deception by secretly tagging both the accused and their unsuspecting alibi runner and comparing the data.
Or something like that, anyway.