Tag Archives: source credibility

red bar graphic

0 for 2 or 3 for 3?

Models, Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , ,

Was I wrong about A.I.? I believe my arguments still stand, and are clearer if we accept the solid idea that communication involves the assessment of three essential components: a source, message, and audience.

The trouble with writing is that our words sometimes hang around to remind others of the outmoded antiques we once proposed as innovative thoughts. Twice I’ve offered views on what I considered the non-threatening nature of A.I.: one in 2015, and one last year. While it would not be a new experience for me, was I wrong? In this case, I don’t think so.

The upshot of these posts is that A.I. messages will always be problematic because they are not sourced by a single human. We need information about a source to estimate their credibility. Perhaps I was a tad wide of the mark in one piece to say that “humans have nothing to fear” from A.I. But I still think my primary argument stands. It’s based in the centuries-old dictum that communication  messages must be measured against the credibility and motivations of a human agent making them.

In terms of influencing the larger debate, I may be 0 for 2. But I believe nothing has changed if we accept the old dictum that communication involves three essential components: a message, an audience and a source. A.I. systems carry no information about the carrier of a message. A.I. is more encyclopedic and less able to judge good information and sources. In an earlier essay I noted that  A.I. “lacks the kind of human information that we  so readily reveal in our conversations with others. We have a sense of self and an accumulated biography of life experiences that shapes our reactions and dispositions.” In short, the communication that should matter to us is always measured against the known character and motivations of a human source. Knowing something about a source is a key part of understanding what is being said. What do we believe? It depends on who is doing the telling. Should be accept an A.I. version of the claims made frequently in the U.S. about illegal voting? A.I. might dig up background data. But we would still need a fair-minded expert on American voting habits to draw an accurate conclusion.  It is obvious we would want to qualify the source to rule out reasons that might bias their views.

As I noted in previous posts, most meaningful human transactions are not the stuff of machine-based intelligence, and probably never can be. We are not computers. As Walter Isaacson reminds us in The Innovators, we are carbon-based creatures with chemical and electrical impulses that mix to create unique and idiosyncratic individuals. This is when the organ of the brain becomes so much more: the biographical homeland of an experience-saturated mind. With us there is no central processor. We are not silicon-based. There are nearly infinite forms of consciousness in a brain with 100-billion neurons with 100-trillion connections. And because we often “think” in nuanced language and metaphors, we are so much more—and sometimes less—than an encyclopedia on two legs.

We triangulate between our  perceptions of who we are, who the source is, and how the source is processing what they think we know.  This monitoring is full of feedback loops that can produce estimates of intention shaped by relevant lived experience.

Just the idea of selfhood should remind us of the special status that comes from living through dialogue with others. A sense of self is complicated, but it includes the critical ability to be aware of another’s awareness of who we are. If this sounds confusing, it isn’t. This process of making character estimations is central to all but the most perfunctory communication transactions. The results are feelings and judgments that make us smarter about another source’s claims and judgments.

hello dave image

The one gap in my thinking is what could be called the “Dave” problem. What is to be done with computers that “think” they know best, and set in motion what human designers failed to take into account? It was a problem in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, and is surely possible because of a bad designer, or one with the intention of creating havoc. But to some extent, this has always been the case with automated systems.

Finally, as I wrote in a previous post. “Everyone seems to be describing humans as information-transfer organisms. But, in truth, we are not particularly good at creating reliable accounts of events. What we seem hardwired to do is to add to our understanding of events around us” by determining the credibility of a source.

Any thoughts? 0 for 3? Write to woodward@tcnj.edu.

two color line

Regaining a Consciousness of Character

Problem Practices, , , , , , ,
                        My Dinner with Andre

Sometimes even a friend needs to hear that they need to have higher standards for judging the character of others.

Aristotle famously pointed out that who a person is can speak louder than what they say. He and other wide-ranging thinkers argued that one’s own personal credibility was precious: a character trait necessary to be a force for good in public discussion.  They used a phrase we barely hear today: the idea of the “virtuous person.”

We can’t say the impulse is dead. Novels, documentaries and films regularly put shallow and temporizing characters on display as negative models. Drama lets us see human frailty, keeping the idea of flawed, biased and unreliable sources visible. But the information overload that is now the norm often means that the character of a source is assessed last, if at all. To cite one instance, research shows that users of the internet for medical information are less likely to weigh the source than the “helpful” information, leaving many to bogus remedies promoted by companies whose interests are more marketing than medical.

The maw of fractured conversations we now witness across media platforms distracts us from considering the quality of sources. Narratives of dramatic events can easily draw us in to fascinating details before we have fully considered whether the core values of basic honesty and moral action have been met. Right now, for example, YouTube is full of stories about the Russian invasion of Ukraine that come from individual and private sources. These are usually hopeful but somewhat dubious assessments about Ukraine from individuals, rather than straight reporting from the field. We need to be alert to the likelihood that not every assertion is accurate, even if we want it to be.  People often get a free pass from us if their views and values align with our own.

In the Age of the Con, Who Can be Trusted?

As a culture, we seem increasingly slow to come to an awareness of another’s shortcuts around more rigorous investigation and fact-checking. Think of the claims that Elizabeth Theranos made for her rapid-result, all-in-one blood testing machines. We owe the initial awareness of her invention’s weaknesses to John Carreyrou of The Wall Street Journal. He was skeptical of the claims to investors made for the machine, and grew even more doubtful when some working at Theranos privately noted that the untested technology was capable of far less than advertised. Usually those working at a startup are as enthusiastic as the founders, hence, not very reliable if problems arise. Too much is at stake to communicate doubts. But the rare doubter within an organization who will talk may be more credible because they have placed truth higher than their own career. Like all of us, journalists must weigh the motives of a source when trying to sort out hopes from hard truths.

Personal credibility has recently received more attention in light of the leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion for overturning Roe vs. Wade, the landmark court decision guaranteeing Americans a choice in whether to proceed with a pregnancy.  An apparent majority now seems intent on overturning the landmark 1973 ruling. Politico released the draft copy indicating that Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett had voted with Samuel Alito to toss out the precedent. This was in spite of the fact that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett had given public testimony at their confirmation hearings declaring Roe to be “settled law.” Critics were angry that these justices had not honored their earlier views to leave this key precedent in place.  Can future court nominees be trusted to act on their stated beliefs?

We need to consider the veracity of those whose who want to shape our attitudes and actions. Sometimes a friend needs to be reminded that they are putting their trust in the hands of someone unworthy of it. Several simple questions about sources are a good place to start:

  • Is the source in a position to know the truth or make a reasonable judgment?
  • Have other serious people supported the source’s reliability?
  • Is a person’s enthusiasm for an idea unreasonably coloring their judgment?
  • Can a source coherently explain their reasoning and evidence for an assertion?

And there’s one more question I find reassuring when answered in the affirmative.

  • Does a source have enough honesty to acknowledge not knowing enough to answer?