Slashdot Mirror
Real-Time Fact Checking With "Truth Teller"
The Washington Post has announced a prototype news application called "Truth Teller", that displays “TRUE" or “FALSE” in real time next to video of politicians as they speak. The Knight Foundation-funded program automatically transcribes speeches and checks the statements against a database of facts. From the article: "For now, the early beta prototype has to be manually hand-fed some facts, and thus only works on topics it has been specifically designed to recognize. Since Congress has yet to pass a budget, and financial discussions are prone to widespread lies and misstatements, Truth Teller is being piloted on the issue of tax policy."
So basically they've made a static page with the word "FALSE" on it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Wow. This will never be abused. Now we are spoon feeding low information voters?
if(lips_move)
then
display("FALSE");
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
... it's a sticker that reads "bullshit", you slap it on the screen permanently.
Joke aside, who will debunk the dunkers ? Everything we know is false, for vaster and more elaborate definitions of "false" as science progresses.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
that displays âoeTRUE" or âoeFALSEâ in real time next to video of politicians as they speak.
Few statements can be classified as "true" or "false" exactly. There is always some fraction of bullshit, but the fraction varies:
Politifact has
True --The statement is accurate and thereâ(TM)s nothing significant missing.
Mostly True -- The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
Half True -- The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
Mostly False -- The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
False -- The statement is not accurate.
Pants on Fire -- The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
And even this may be too coarse-grained.
I think I'd rather IBM's Watson, I think it's shown a lot of promise in natural language parsing and I think it would do a better job than anything The Washington Post can come up with.
Have you ever heard of the concept of garbage in - garbage out? If you ask the majority of people they think that things like return on investment as 'facts', but yet infinite growth in a finite system is impossible, and all economic activity is premised on energy and thermodynamics.
When politicians say things like 'high taxes are hurting business' will the system be 'hand fed' the appropriate answer, regardless of mountains of evidence showing otherwise because it discourages 'non-productive consumption', and that the high taxes pay for government infrastucture, welfare, and investment?
Similarly there have been lots of propaganda referred to as facts in terms of tax policy, by the likes of the 'chicago boys' and people like milton friedman et al, however these people don't believe that economics can be studied empirically, and tax policy as an extension of economic policy.
I have had my share of problems with my local oregon newspaper distorting facts of even its 'politifact', and generaly attacking the institution of government itself as bad, so that it can meet the expectations of the patrons which keep it in business.
Is is any suprise that news media that are conservative make way more ad revenue per viewer than liberal, say for example rachel maddow or the daily show vs fox primetime, even when they have better age demographics of viewership for advertisers?
Sound like total rubbish to me. Politicians do lie sometimes and they even occasionaly tell the truth but mostly they bend the truth out of all proportion. If they make a statement its not TRUE or FALSE usually the answer would be "WELL... ITS COMPLICATED.. it depends how you look at it" In the UK we have a radio show dedicated to statistics called More or Less http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd These folks can spend half the show discussing the truth behind a single political statement and then sometimes dont come to a firm conclusion
hmmm.
The difference is that the T/Z interaction details are not facts.
How much money was allocated to the military in the last ten years in budgets?
How much money was spent by the military in the last ten years?
What percentage of the revenue of the federal budget is collected as income tax on those making in the top X% of income earners?
How many people receive social security who also have assets greater than $2,000,000?
Are there more or fewer naval ships in service today than in 2000?
Do the bottom 50% of income households pay zero income taxes? zero federal taxes? zero taxes?
How many days of vacation has the president taken in the past 4 years? Has the president taken more vacation days per year than the previous president?
How many firearms are purchased in the US in a year?
How many intruders are shot by firearms owners defending their property or person?
How many suicides are the result of firearm use? Of poison use? Of jumping off buildings?
What is the national average price of hamburger?
All verifiable facts from reliable, independent sources. Based on the ability of Watson to parse, search, and manage data, I think it's also possible to determine if the data is in question.
As someone who routinely fact checks and is appalled at the gross inaccuracies out there (not just the twisting or cherry picking, but simply wrong) I, for one, welcome our new robotic fact checking overlord(s).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?