Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Predict Accuracy of Political Statements

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the google-knows dept.

pestario writes "Google CEO Eric Schmidt talks about a service which can give the probability of the accuracy of statements made by politicians, among other things. From the Reuters article, Schmidt says: "We (at Google) are not in charge of truth but we might be able to give a probability." Can Google's 'truth predictor' bring an end to sound bites and one-liners? I'm not holding my breath...""

4 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Harry Seldon would be proud by t0xic@ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I guess Psychohistory is here! I just wish Isaac Asimov would have lived a bit longer.

  2. Who's watching Google? by hal2814 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is Google going to be backing up the true and false statements with sources? Furthermore, what sources are they going to use? How will they evaluate statements that are viewed as true by some sources but false by others? I don't know about you guys but I don't exactly trust Google to give me some sort of percentage true or false without justifying their position. I also don't entirely trust Google not to abuse such a position. Often the truth is what you make of it and I'm not so sure I'll buy into Google-branded truth. I think that researching what the politicians say yourself is your best line of defense in determining how much they lie.

  3. Re:I know what the politicians will do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Indeed they will. Issuing in a deluge of "Truth Engine Optimization" consultants. And anyone who doesn't have the money to hire them will be seen as less and less trustwothy. I think we all see this as a fool's errand.

    I find it interesting the reflection this shows of where we are with net content in the days of Search Engine Optimization. In utopian theory, the web is perfectly democratised content where anyone can post anything. The search engines are supposed to match users to sites based solely on the content of the sites, and rank them solely on relevance. However, in this age of Search Engine Optimization, it's possible for someon with enough knowledge and/or consultants to claw their way to the top of the pile, which (necessarilly) is at the expense of less optimized sites that are more relevant. Which, of course, forces the more relevant sites to optimize themselves in return to "restore the balance."

    We're now somewhat a level abstracted from the utopian purity of "relevance" in Google (and other search engine) results, just as this new tool would abstract us away from the purity of actual "truth"

  4. but what if they're sincere? by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There are auditory and visual cues to detecting a lie
    I think there are auditory and visual clues to detecting a willful falsehood, but what about people who are sincere? I think VP Cheney means what he says, really, and he doesn't seem affected by what we call "reality." No matter how many CIA or Defense Department studies or reports contradict what he's saying, he still stays on-message. The more prominent of a role religion plays in public life, the more frequently we see what I call "faith-based reality." People believe whatever the hell they want, and they don't consider fact, expertise, education, or even the glaringly obvious to threaten their worldview in any way. They're used to believing things based on their gut feeling, they've grown up in a culture where they're told to trust that inner voice and distrust "the secular world," and lo and behold, that's what they do. A lie detector isn't going to catch someone who sincerely believes something that isn't true.

    For example, parts of the country (the Bible Belt comes to mind) that rely more on abstinence-only education have a higher teen pregnancy rate, but that doesn't dissuade religious people from thinking that abstinence-only education is better. You don't have to collect data or analyze trends if you just know, and people who just know things based on their "conscience" aren't really lying. They're just using a kind of thinking that doesn't rely on objective reality. What's more, their confidence will actually be higher than "secularists," because the secular worldview always entails the awareness of our own fallibility, thus an element of self-doubt, which doesn't plague those who feel they are instruments of divine providence. They more sincerely and steadfastly believe in their faith-based reality than you do in your reality-based reality. So you'd be tripped up by your device long before they would be.