I’ve been wondering about this lately.

Recently, I made a post about Ukraine on another social media site, and someone jumped in with the usual "Ukraine isn't a democracy" right-wing talking point. I wrote out a long, thoughtful reply, only to get the predictable one-liner propaganda responses back. You probably know the type, just regurgitated stuff with no real engagement.

After that, I didn’t really feel like spending my time and energy writing out detailed replies to every canned response. But I also didn’t want to just let it sit there and have people who might be reading the exchange assume there’s no pushback or correction.

So instead, I tried leveraging AI to help me write a fact-checking reply. Not for the person I was arguing with, really, but more as an FYI for anyone else following along. I made sure it stayed factual and based in reality, avoided name-calling, and kept the tone above the usual mudslinging. And of course, I double-checked what it wrote to make sure it matched my understanding and wasn’t just spitting out garbage or hallucinations.

But it got me thinking that there’s a lot of fear about AI being used to spread and create misinformation. But do you think there’s also an opportunity to use it as a tool to counter misinformation, without burning ourselves out in the process?

Curious how others see it.

https://youtu.be/vodNabH5qoM
But some important context:

Earlier this month I saw a post regarding a Misinformation Susceptibility Test and was curious how 20 binary questions could be an indicator of someones media biases.

I started digging into the related paper and while the methods and analysis was interesting, there was still a lot of questions. So I reached out to Dr Rakoen Maertens who headed the study and we agreed to a discussion on the assessment and his experiences in social psychology.

The video above is an unlisted, unedited cut of the interview and I'd love to get some feedback:

Firstly: I have offered the Dr a tildes invite and he may engage with any questions or discussion. Time was limited and there were a lot of topics that was only briefly touched on or overlooked. Here is the original paper and supplementary resources if you want to see some of the language model work and bigger 100 question tests.

Secondly: I am going to do a more through edit and posting this on a dedicated channel. Since cutting off reddit, twitter and tiktoc; I've sort of rediscovered a love learning and investigations. I'd like to know if people like this form of engagement and discussions. No fancy production, just simply engaging with the research and academics behind topical and interesting ideas.

I'm already reading into fandom psychology, UV reflective paint, children's TV and CO2 scrubbing technology.

I'm in an online course right now that touches upon information literacy: the ability to access, sort through, and analyze information (particularly online). It is not a very in-depth course, and a lot of the recommendations it gives feel a little limited/dated, or just out of touch with current internet practices (e.g. trust .edu and .gov sites -- don't trust .com sites; use Britannica Online instead of Wikipedia). It also doesn't really account for things like memes, social media, or really much of the modern internet landscape.

I know we have a lot of very technically literate as well as informationally literate people here, and I'm curious: if you were tasked with creating a class to help people learn information literacy, including how to identify misinformation online, what would some of your key points or focuses be? How would you convey those to your students (whether those students are kids, adults, or both)?