Robin Hood, but modernized as a 21st-century hacker type so that he can cope in today’s world. But I’d still like him to look like he belongs in an edgy 90s movie, complete with green tights, for authenticity’s sake.

A quick reminder in this context: The German government wants to introduce Palantir nationwide, even though this violates applicable law - both at the European and national levels. Contracts have even already been signed in some federal states.

Here is a link to a Campact petition calling on the SPD to block the CDU/CSU’s plans.

And here is a petition addressed directly to the state parliament of Baden-Württemberg, demanding that the contract already signed with Palantir be disclosed and revoked.

In my opinion, everyone living in Germany should sign both petitions - it is scandalous that this is even necessary, but unfortunately, conservative german politicians in particular continue to pursue their shady dealings.

Yes, that’s true, of course, and it’s the reason why no clear patterns can be found here. However, as is often the case with conspiracy theories, this could also be dismissed as a distraction from the conspiracy.

But you are absolutely right: we should stick to the facts—this idea is just a nightmare scenario for me because even in democratic systems it would make freedom, self-determination, and above all the hope for better times almost completely impossible.

That we may be living in a world where the super-rich and powerful from all countries have conspired to establish a kind of global absolutist monarchy of the utterly unscrupulous, in which fabricated conflicts between countries serve mostly to distract from the fact that those pulling the strings behind the scenes have already undermined every political system and are simply pitting people against each other in order to secure even more power for themselves through war, mass surveillance, propaganda, the rationing of essential goods, and blatant destruction.

Please note: This is a conspiracy theory with no solid evidence, not a fact, but a dystopia that unfortunately seems increasingly realistic these days.

But (classic) Google provides links that can be traced. LLMs do not do this consistently - and they are frequently hallucinating. Don’t you want to contribute anything to my core statement?

Theoretically, yes, just as poor content is still content - but that only applies until someone takes the time to engage with it.

I don’t think you have any idea how bad it’s going to get in the future - Grok is already giving us a glimpse, but LLMs haven’t replaced search engines like Google yet (has AI already) - but it’s definitely heading in that direction. Then the answers will be given even more strongly and with far less transparency by those who control the LLMs - and they are all multi-billion companies, because only they can afford the necessary computing power.

Oh, companies will definitely provide content - much more than you could ever read, see, or hear (they already do provide more than you could ever comprehend using AI). And companies have done this in the past.

The difference, however, will be that it will be a sequence of existing content. The reason: AI companies claim that their LLMs would behave like humans - and that’s halfway understandable if you believe this narrative: Imagine a musician - it would be unrealistic to think that they have no influences - every musician will say that they have been inspired by Jimmy Hendrix, Kraftwerk or some other influential artist in their work. And yes, that’s what the narratives about neural networks are aiming for: machines learn just like humans: they take some input (training data) and make something extraordinary of it.

The thing is, though, most of it is just empty marketing. AI or rather LLMs are in fact not capable of producing new things the way humans can - not now, and as things stand, probably never. Nevertheless, the economy is adapting as if it were.

For everyone who actually creates content - musicians, scientists, writers, journalists, graphic designers, painters, even civil servants and many others - this means that in the future, they will no longer be able to make a living from their profession. Their valuable content can’t compete with AI because it is too expensive.

For employers, this may be absolute fulfillment - for everyone else, it means the end of the information age, because AI is not capable of producing anything new. And when there is noone able to make a living from their intellectual work, nothing of any worth new will be produced - just variants of thing that were already there.

What I meant was that my question wasn’t about how to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources – I think most Lemmy users are capable of doing that.

I was more interested in how we can effectively and meaningfully contribute to countering the flood of misinformation on social media (such as Twitter or meta apps).

The background to my question is the fact that this misinformation influences users’ opinions. I think, the US is the best example of where that can lead. Unfortunately, there are similar trends in my home country. Since I don’t want to be ruled by fascists, I thought I’d ask the community here what can be done.

But apparently I didn’t phrase the question very well.

What makes you think I couldn’t tell the difference?

Well, my question was about how to counter the constant misinformation spread by influential people like Trump (there are people like him in pretty much every country) – that’s why I mentioned other platforms, because Lemmy is completely irrelevant in this context due to its very limited reach.

Any examples?

So you think it’s okay for the US president to spread misinformation? You really don’t see a problem with that, even though you yourself talk about “information hygiene”?

Do you have any examples?

In Hitler’s time, there was only radio, but Goebbels, his PR man, knew how to use it to great effect. His books are sometimes still read today in PR training courses because PR is just another word for propaganda, and Goebbels is considered one of the fathers of this discipline.

Most of the misinformation I regularly find on top are statements made by the US president or his administration – and these are news reports in an appropriate context with appropriate commentary by Lemmy users. Occasionally, very rarely, I have also seen misinformation about the US president, but I don’t see that as much of a problem.

Rather, I see it as a very serious problem that the US president himself and his administration are massively spreading misinformation. That is what my question refers to.

That’s certainly a good point, but I’m less concerned with how to verify information than with how to counteract the constant flow of misinformation — especially on other platforms where misinformation is deliberately pushed, which is causing major problems in my home country alone.

Unfortunately, I believe that social media does influence people’s decisions very much. If that weren’t the case, criminals like Trump could never be elected president, and 20-25% of the people in my home country wouldn’t vote for open Nazis.

Nevertheless, thank you for your valuable contribution: In addition to technical possibilities, I am also interested in how to deal with people who do not accept rational arguments - the Socratic method is probably the best way to make a point with them.

I’m only on Lemmy, but I don’t think my individual decision will make a difference—and unfortunately, I don’t think anyone should realistically expect it to.

I think anyone who is already here has recognized the problem.