Opinion Masquerading As Fact

Grog's Gamut has a post about Andrew Bolt getting his facts mixed up. This happens to Andrew too often to be mere mistakes.

My comment on that post is:

"What leads him to do things like this, continually, is his feverish search for any hint of evidence supporting his pre-held views (one does this when such evidence is hard to find). He would have seen that text, and immediately jumped to the conclusion.

In and of itself, I could ignore this and just choose not to read and listen, except that he presents his opinion as fact. For instance, on Insiders recently, he forcefully persisted that the risk to Australians as a result of a potential nuclear incident (irrespective of the fact that Fukishama is just 240km north of Tokyo), and that Kevin Rudd had 'demanded' and update and had 'show-boated' (both exaggerated characterisations). Even if the risk is near-zero, the Government has a duty of care to trust but verify.

And, whilst he doesn't consider himself a journalist, he does allow people to assume that he is. The thing is, what can we do about it except continue to pick up his errors?"

I honestly don't have an answer to this question. What can be done to inform the uninformed? Commentary programs rate well on TV, and there seems to be an incredible ease with which most Australians jump to conclusions first, and search for backing evidence second. I would argue that much of the conservative position is ideology without validating evidence, and that this becomes a vicious circle. But are progressives better? I like to think so, but I'm not sure.

I'm trying to recall what my decision making process was when I first heard about climate change. Did I come to believe because of the scientific consensus, or did I learn of the consensus later? I'll never know. All we can do is exercise self-awareness in monitoring our beliefs and questioning ourselves and others.

The Distant Future

Paul Krugman links here to a very interesting article he wrote long ago (he notes that the article is not entirely serious), about the diminishing value of highly educated workers. It's hard to argue with the sentiment; as computer software increases in complexity and power, so too will the range of technical duties it can undertake more efficiently than humans. And with that, large parts of the workforce will need to adapt. He also notes that AI will be (was) a bust.

My take is different, and yet very similar. AI will not be a bust, though practical, human-like AI is at least a century away. There has been steady development in the field of AI over the last decade, but Hollywood has not portrayed a realistic vision and expectation of the evolution of machines.

But I do agree that the nature of human existence will continue to change irrevocably. Many tasks will become increasingly automated, and so they should. In the short term, I think that white-collar workers will benefit greatly as this technology is developed but prior to it being capable of replacing skilled labour. In the long term, I think it will free resources for higher purposes, such as art, philosophy, music, and so on. This is not a bad thing.

Above anything else, I am bullish and excited about the future.