[fitpolar]

It's a hopeless quest until AI reaches a certain level of objective interpretation.

Regarding humans, most people who are capable of researching truth without any bias, don't have a voice. Human history is riddled with partisan extremists presenting biased information as neutral and factual. Snopes is no exception.

[Steko]

> partisan extremists presenting biased information as neutral and factual. Snopes is no exception.

Please cite some of these "partisan extremist" examples from Snopes.

[deogeo]

Do you trust whoever trained or is controlling the AI?

[fitpolar]

At this point nothing is trustworthy. But I have more faith that AI is going to do a better job in future than humans ever have. We may be 100 years away from that though, or 1000 years. Who knows?

[52-6F-62]

And then this AI is the sole bearer of all ultimate, unarguable truth regardless. Like a god you mean?

[fitpolar]

Is that your interpretation? Mine is the opposite: "At this point nothing is trustworthy".

Just saying that humans have an extremely poor track record at compromising information for political gain. Anything would be better at this point, you can't get any worse.

[52-6F-62]

I think it could get worse but that’s just me.

I prefer an aggregate. Then I can derive what I think is the truth.

Trust is learned, anyway. Except for children— they often do as a default until a point in their lives.