AI slop is getting better, a class on it from a year ago would focus heavily on counting fingers and things like that, but that’s becoming rarer and rarer.
If people took a class on it now, a lot of what they learned might not matter in a year or two.
I don’t really agree. A lot of more complex patterns that were present in old content still persists in new AI generated material. I think the knowledge won’t be completely outdated as time goes on.
Besides, there are plenty of PSA’s about scams despite those also always evolving. It’s still worth teaching people about to deal with things now.
People are most susceptible to false claims when they back up or collaborate something they already believe. So most of the time people who fall for fake news/AI slop/etc will consider it plausible by default, they’re only giving it attention because it seems plausible based on their current beliefs.
A lot of stuff like this spreads in echo chambers as well, so there will often be a community of like minded people, who all agree with it, talking about how true it is. In those circumstances it’s pretty easy to assume that if it matches you and your community’s beliefs/knowledge, and no one else has identified it as false, that it’s probably true or mostly true.
AI slop is getting better, a class on it from a year ago would focus heavily on counting fingers and things like that, but that’s becoming rarer and rarer.
If people took a class on it now, a lot of what they learned might not matter in a year or two.
I don’t really agree. A lot of more complex patterns that were present in old content still persists in new AI generated material. I think the knowledge won’t be completely outdated as time goes on. Besides, there are plenty of PSA’s about scams despite those also always evolving. It’s still worth teaching people about to deal with things now.
Considering plausibility and the reliability of the source, as one does when using critical thinking, will always be useful.
Which requires a baseline of knowledge.
Which requires education. Which is being gutted or diluted and has been at least since NCLB.
I’ve tried building a curriculum around this idea. The typical level of undereducated is stunning.
People are most susceptible to false claims when they back up or collaborate something they already believe. So most of the time people who fall for fake news/AI slop/etc will consider it plausible by default, they’re only giving it attention because it seems plausible based on their current beliefs.
A lot of stuff like this spreads in echo chambers as well, so there will often be a community of like minded people, who all agree with it, talking about how true it is. In those circumstances it’s pretty easy to assume that if it matches you and your community’s beliefs/knowledge, and no one else has identified it as false, that it’s probably true or mostly true.
I wonder where identifying and focusing on improving it comes from? /s