Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday December 14 2022, @12:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the creepy dept.

MIT presents the "Wearable Reasoner," a proof-of-concept wearable system capable of analyzing if an argument is stated with supporting evidence or not to prompt people to question and reflect on the justification of their own beliefs and the arguments of others:

In an experimental study, we explored the impact of argumentation mining and explainability of the AI feedback on the user through a verbal statement evaluation task. The results demonstrate that the device with explainable feedback is effective in enhancing rationality by helping users differentiate between statements supported by evidence and those without. When assisted by an AI system with explainable feedback, users significantly consider claims given with reasons or evidence more reasonable than those without. Qualitative interviews demonstrate users' internal processes of reflection and integration of the new information in their judgment and decision making, stating that they were happy to have a second opinion present, and emphasizing the improved evaluation of presented arguments.

Based on recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), argument mining, and computational linguistics, we envision the possibility of having an AI assistant as a symbiotic counterpart to the biological human brain. As a "second brain," the AI serves as an extended, rational reasoning organ that assists the individual and can teach them to become more rational over time by making them aware of biased and fallacious information through just-in-time feedback. To ensure the transparency of the AI system, and prevent it from becoming an AI "black box,'' it is important for the AI to be able to explain how it generates its classifications. This Explainable AI additionally allows the person to speculate, internalize and learn from the AI system, and prevents an over-reliance on the technology.

Will this help the fight against misinformation/disinformation? Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.

Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 14 2022, @03:25PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday December 14 2022, @03:25PM (#1282377)

    >For some objective things like "the earth is round" that's not difficult

    that depends entirely upon who you are asking. I have seen enough direct evidence of "round earth" for myself to go along with the preponderance of evidence also presented, and generally believe other things those people are saying too.

    However... "Settled Science" is a religion onto itself. What's a "safe dose" of radiation? Well, that depends on when you ask "Settled Science" the question.

    Rather than declaring "objective things" as true, or false, it might be more informative to give a summary score, starting with an estimate of current beliefs of the world's 8 billion+ population. Is the earth round? 99.9944% True according to popular opinion. Break that down by country, by economic class, by education level, etc. etc. etc.

    Fun would be a search of this space to come up with "nuggets of truth" widely "known to be fact" by your own classifications, but regarded as untrue by a majority of other populations - with bonus points for deep dives into why others believe your "truths" to be false.

    🌻🌻 []
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2