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.
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.