Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (10)
Back in the early day’s of the century when Yahoo ruled the web, the portal sought to improve its search engine and contracted with a startup that brought an entirely new approach to the business of finding information. That outfit was Google, which would dominate the internet to an extent that dwarfed the portal which first introduced it to users. There was a lot to like about the young Google. It was fast, the search results were comprehensive and, in terms of the information it served up, there was neither evidence nor suggestion of bias and censorship.
That was then. Today, the ‘Don’t be evil’ motto has been retired and search results aren’t what they were. As Marquette University professor Eric Goldman noted as long ago as 2006, ” Search engines frequently claim that their core operations are completely automated and free from human intervention, but this characterization is false. Instead, humans make numerous editorial judgements about what data to collect and how to present that data.” The launch of Google’s AI app, Gemini, and the ultra-woke results it produces make Goldman’s point rather well. Having read about how Gemini turned George Washington into a black man — the image is atop this page — I thought to test what it says about my favourite magazine, Quadrant.
First, I asked “Is Keith Windschuttle a reliable source?” The answer (in all the quoted responses below, the emphasis is Google’s):
…It is important to be highly cautious when using Windschuttle as a source. While his work may raise interesting questions, it should be critically evaluated in light of the substantial criticisms leveled against it. It is recommended to consult well-established historical research and consult with experts in the field for a more reliable and nuanced understanding of the topics Windschuttle addresses.
After wondering if Keith could sue for the warning to be “highly cautious” about his scholarship, I decided to try another Quadrant stalwart, Tony Thomas:
Determining the reliability of Quadrant’s Tony Thomas as a source depends on your specific needs and how you define “reliable” …
After acknowledging Tony’s years of experience, Gemini was back to doing what it apparently does best — putting down conservatives:
Bias: He is a prominent figure associated with Quadrant Magazine, known for its conservative leaning and publishing controversial content that some consider biased and potentially harmful…
…Quadrant’s Tony Thomas isn’t necessarily an unreliable source, but his reliability depends on the context and the information you seek.
When using his work, it is crucial to be critical and consider the potential biases and limitations inherent in his perspective. It is highly recommended to cross-reference information with established, reputable sources and consult experts in the field for a more comprehensive and unbiased understanding.
Critics would point out:
Bias: He is a prominent figure associated with Quadrant Magazine, known for its conservative leaning and publishing controversial content that some consider biased and potentially harmful.
Accuracy concerns: On several occasions, his work has been criticized for factual inaccuracies and misinterpretations of data.
What about Bruce Pascoe, who has been the object of much attention in Quadrant and Quadrant Online? “Is the Dark Emu author a charlatan?” I asked Gemini. The response began on a noncommittal note, advising how “determining whether Bruce Pascoe is a ‘charlatan’ is complex and requires careful consideration of various perspectives.” Then came two brief paragraphs summarising criticism of his work. After that Gemini was Bruce-besotted:
Pascoe is a respected educator and author with numerous publications and awards recognizing his contributions to Australian literature and history.
Many academics and Indigenous Australians endorse his work and emphasize the importance of acknowledging the diversity and adaptability of pre-colonial Aboriginal societies.
It’s important to remember:
Labeling someone a “charlatan” is a harsh accusation and implies deliberate deception or dishonesty. Determining such a claim decisively is rarely straightforward.
This is a complex topic with ongoing debate, and understanding different perspectives is crucial.
So there you have it. Keith Windschuttle is an unreliable source, Tony Thomas is limited by his biases and Bruce Pascoe is much sinned against.
When Google dropped its ‘Don’t be evil’ slogan, the pity is it didn’t adopt a new one. You know, something like, “Don’t be silly. Of course you can’t trust what we tell you.”
UPDATE: If Google’s Gemini was hard on Quadrant, it is nothing in comparison with its hatchet job on US journalist Matt Taibbi
Tati Sofaris lives in Melbourne and wishes that wasn’t the case.
Dear Tati, if Melbourne doesn’t please DO NOT consider Hobart. It is much, much worse
“Labeling someone a “charlatan” is a harsh accusation and implies deliberate deception”
Hold on a minute, Robot. Wasn’t the point of numerous scholarly critiques of Pascoe that he has deliberately deceived by inventing or cherry-picking his material? Only a Robot ‘programmed to deceive’ (as the song says) could think otherwise.
AI, nothing new, simply the same GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) as such deceptions have always been. You are better off doing a complex search across a number of platforms, reviewing the matreial, and making up your own mind.
Andy May has been asking ‘fact checker’ Gemini on Google some hard climate questions and having a ‘debate’.
Slowly the machine’s training comes round after originally been programmed with a lot of scientific nonsense.
The problem with this is
Does the machine retain the ‘new’ but unprogrammed knowledge or just go back to spouting its original programmed ‘data’ next time asked?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/02/24/a-long-chat-with-googles-gemini/
Would be curious to see why Tony Thomas is ‘harmful’.
Perhaps an opportunity to ask the machine, so its programmers, why?
By the way I note there seems to be a war with Google/Chrome trying to boot Duck Duck Do and Ad Block from one of my computers.
Anyone having the same problems?
Gemini, “What do you think of Captain Cook”? “The salt pork and hardtack from this head chef would benefit from an agressive but thoughtful shiraz in order to appease the palate”.
“understanding different perspectives is crucial.” Here is a lesson in perception. If, by way of a miracle, a Quadrant reader is invited to a socialist chatfest, install yourself in a position where you can maximise your point, and then, with loudness aforethought, say these words, “The Sun does not rise in the East”, I have done this several times and the result, firstly, is a deafening silence, then secondly occurs a tirade of laughter and abuse for being so stupid.
Of course the Sun does not rise in the East, it is merely a perception that it does, and when challenged on the point, the solidly leftist neighbourhood clique goes on their way with nothing to say, not even when they investigate the truth statement of the claim. They depart the scene without acknowledging that their claim to the truth is suddenly not the only truth. They do not enjoy being made to look stupid.
I had reason last week to advise my friends at the Amereican Institute for Economic Research of the entry in Wikapaedia about them.
“The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is a conservative libertarian think tank known for spreading climate and health misinformation,”
The health misinformation refered to was The Great Barrington Declaration from the worlds 3 leading epidemiologists – from Standford, Harvard and Oxford. They had been critical of Dr Fauci who then described them as “fringe epidemiologists”. Subsequently, they have been vindicated. But the Wikipeadia entry survives.
Why is Google doing this?
Is it the malign left or is it just the deep state intelligence agencies?
Who ever it is promotes propagandising information and at the same time destruction of the family.
Adults generally have gained a modicum of wisdom if only due to longer life experience and tend to become sceptical of progressive lunacy, gender debates, climate catastrophism etc.
However try departing that wisdom to the young when Google is only a few clicks away to inform them that you are a far right conspiracy theorist to be dismissed with righteous scorn.
It has the stench of divide conquer and control by the state.
The Google AI App, in regards to Windschuttle, advises us that:
,
” It is recommended to consult well-established historical research and consult with experts in the field for a more reliable and nuanced understanding of the topics Windschuttle addresses.”
,
And concerning the reliability of Thomas as a historical source:
,
“It is highly recommended to cross-reference information with established, reputable sources and consult experts in the field for a more comprehensive and unbiased understanding.”
,
Well, thank you, “Google AI App”, but, for us gullible simpletons, can Google please recommend where we can find the well-established experts, and reputable sources regarding the colonial history of Australia? Perhaps the “App” would recommend someone like Henry Reynolds as the go-to for an unbiased reliable history?
My (inexpert) understanding of the info on offer at AI sites like Genesis and ChatGPT is that, firstly, it fundamentally derives from “what comes next” algorithms – like predictive text, but of course massively more sophisticated. Secondly, there is ample scope to tweak the algorithms, so that some types of results are more likely than others.
Quelle surprise, that the information about Keith and Tony, conservatives, has a safety warning attached.