SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3384657.3384799
Will this help the fight against misinformation/disinformation? Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
(Score: 2) by SomeRandomGeek on Wednesday December 14 2022, @05:04PM (3 children)
Irrational people are often irrational intentionally. To pick a famous example, consider Kim Jung-Un, the leader of a country whose whole defense strategy rests on a willingness to use nuclear weapons. And he comes across as the kind of guy who would nuke Seoul just to see the pretty lights. The North Koreans constantly signal irrationality because it makes their threats credible. In every day life, being "rational" means that if some smooth talker can sell you a rational argument, and you can't see the flaw in it, you have to let yourself be persuaded. That's great if you're smart, but what if you're not? What if you can't tell the difference between the truth and lies? Do you have to believe everyone who comes along and drops some big words on you? Lots of people are irrational as a defense mechanism. They know they can't win the "rational" game, so they just refuse to play. Those people do not want a wearable tool that points out when they are being irrational. Being irrational doesn't work unless you can pretend you are doing it in good faith.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 14 2022, @09:36PM (1 child)
Mod system broken. +1 Insightful ^^^
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday December 15 2022, @01:53AM
+1 Informative ^^^
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday December 15 2022, @12:52AM
Actually, in the case of Kim Jung-Un, I'd argue he is acting quite rationally. He's achieving the primary objectives - 1) keeping himself in power, 2) keeping scarcity so it can be used as a mean to control people, and 3) keeping other countries from wiping it out with military force.
Do I think he's morally right with such a priority order? Well, no. But I think he's acting well in line with his chosen* priorities.
*) Priorities assumed based on outside observation; no special knowledge available to me