Not at all. Wisdom of the crowd assumes that the crowd has some knowledge that has value. Groupthink and herding behaviour, in other words, people who are homogenous - are not wiser together.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Not at all. Wisdom of the crowd assumes that the crowd has some knowledge that has value. Groupthink and herding behaviour, in other words, people who are homogenous - are not wiser together.
hence the part about diverse and independent.
Is AI diverse and independent?
Without knowing the source of the data that it used to average out a response, I couldn't say one way or the other. However, we have no reason to believe that AI replies are solely derived from single sources of data. And it's not much different from scholarly publications that often cite the same sources, yet we give expert status to people with this derivative work.
Remember when the AI images of the typical Nazi soldier came out a year or so ago, and half of them were black and ethnic? It isn't a derivative of scholarly articles, it is the derivative opinion of whatever is socially acceptable now - the crowds. It isn't always this clear though. The way it nudges opinion further is dangerous, isn't it?
I think that was a result of the programmers requiring AI to generate images with diversity. I think it's more reflective of the creators of the AI.
Still, I do agree that we should be mindful of accepting all that AI spits out. So long as it is a black box, we can never be certain about what biases it harbors.
No in fact it's the opposite as you know. Enter the echo chamber...