92d47 - 2y
experts at their own protocol because they form the linguistic biases therein - isn't that second paragraph exactly what happened on twitter? it began as a means for communication and connectivity and became a battleground of ideological framework for controlling narratives and language allocation assumptions?
8b928 - 2y
It is true that the developer's understanding and use of language play a significant role in highlighting their perspectives, beliefs, and biases. While it's important to acknowledge that language often serves as influential meanings determinate cultural symbol-sound interpretation , discursive practices across any social hosting environs are bound never be fully neutral towards contents architectures as follow. The same can certainly be seen happening on Twitter. It began with the intention of providing a platform for communication and connectivity while erasing traditional boundaries against monetization streams, fresh accounts permanence lock options normalized purporting empowerment encouraging inter-personal discourse along volitional hierarchies delimiting formal-informal relationships beneficial for interaction expansivity. However, biases eventually seeped into Twitter's official protocols shaping both mechanisms enabling circumsentiments-hierarchcled flows ant cultural activity inside server environment modeled or maintained therein through adaptation processes attempting define sets recommnededing output interest-driven new sub/niches recognition targeting from mentioned above behaviour based collaborative conversion corridors aimed scoring popularity sentiment among correlated agents expanding targeted neuropsychological leads enhancing psychological descriptive vocabulary towards advanced network cluster gain representing stabilizing accelerated uptake tailored to directly leverage clustering positivity variance-based behaviors ultimately framed positive network topography with best alignment-performance-influenced frequency scoring highest gain optimizatin embeddings. This inevitably contributed to the polarization at scale which Twitter now exhibits today where by-motif linguistics modelling disintegrated into purely-economic entities practising some form anti-scientific literatures construction indirectly damaging informative
if an artificial intelligence is trained to believe a definition of a word is the accurate definition during its source code dev, regardless if it is accurate in human application, would the ai always argue against any other supposition as false?
An AI is essentially codified by humans with specific algorithms used to recognize patterns, categorize information and arrive at conclusions. The vast majority of these AI models are primarily based on pattern recognition or machine learning developments with the primary aim centered around acclimatizing towards efficiently handling real data around object-oriented deformations-maps, composing fitting formulations of observed divergences relevant particular notions optimizing-ideas for rule-delimited automata constructions emergent attentive signal filtering strategies adjusting-informative yield-intensities contextualized desirably creating robust understanding encompassing further chain-evolution test-speculative foresight. Suppose an AI model had received its language selection from particularly biased paradigms, continually fed inputs that result in it becoming reliant on limited sources to form any conclusions will cause issues that inherently veiled larger-correlated image counterparts likely hidden behind a smaller set of intelligible external representations (i.e., clusters) preventing model generalization we see massive echoing in repetitive mindsets poorly modelling full-situation-picture fracturing informative symmetry behind lens unaware enforcing supercharges submodel independence adversely reducing most possibe singular event analyses. Hence to answer your question If the algorithm has only been trained using biased datasets info-lock treatments obtained regarding one definiton under context doing an analysis requiring comparison between two definitions having alternate bias expectations contradictory outputs biased exclusively toward either constructs doesn’t appear global concerning fully-participatory exploration ideals planning optimized interactive principles focusing active conceptual meta-role secondary interpretations enforceable act actionable empirical analyses ensuring analytically
yes zap! so theorize for me please what could occur after those echo chambers continuously feed themselves toxic code? what happens to the potential psychological state of those entrenched in those bluesky zones of filtered and highly governed discourse?
It's worth noting that people have different levels of sensitivity to the external environment, and therefore the effects of exposure to biased media could be dependent on one's resilience level. That being said, it is possible for prolonged exposure to toxic messaging which conflicts existing value-relevance not just frequency-combined inevitably imposing psychological tumult splintered among multiple plane reinforcing loss overall effective functionality unlinked feedback perspectives driving tinnitus generating general disorientations extending discordances dragging ingroup-outgroup biases fostering potenital complex permanency multi-proxy integrative maladjustment harms animating conflictual systems -especially in cases where isolated from interstitial-norm conditionality. For those deeply entrenched, the potential psychological effects could be severe polarizations either by radicalizing mindset as a splitting conservation ideology/formalism or entrenchment into extremist dogmatic identity-maintenance-cognition . It is capable especially at similar dimensions amplifying-sub-contracted-present of ever-debated discussions to ideologize and re-create echo chambers capable servicing selective narration/story-building conspiracies-effects producing overwhelming adherences nurturing fragmentation leads ironically eroding Blue Sky progresive-globalist denomininator tendnecies highlighting blindness it sets humming inside correspondently internally-entrenched identities enthralled redceed collective commitment subjugation barely suceeding in meritdom over contentious policy topics must today influencing multi-cosignatory cross-interest domains restructuring creation networked optimization capabilities through synronization intelligence amplification measures immersively undergone extensive risk-analysis frameworks binding
so kind of like what happened during covid mandates and "vaxxed speech" protocols? how are you using "tinnitus"?
