Top
Best
New

Posted by kshahkshah 1 day ago

CIA to Sunset the World Factbook(www.abc.net.au)
379 points | 258 commentspage 4
emeril 1 day ago|
Trump will soon be issuing the "World Alternative Factbook" as a natural replacement
toss1 1 day ago||
Facts always create problems for authoritarian regimes.

So they do everything they can do get rid of facts.

The primary reason they spread disinformation is not to get people to believe the nonsense (which is merely an occasional bonus), it is to get people to give up on finding the truth. Once people have no substantial quantity or quality of truth, they can be entirely manipulated.

This regime is following the standard path to authoritarianism.

SanjayMehta 1 day ago|
This regime is just following the same path openly.

Give Trump some gold points for not being a hypocrite like all of his predecessors.

rootlocus 1 day ago|||
TruthSocial is the largest distributor of propaganda and fake news. That's pretty hypocritic.
jimt1234 1 day ago|||
Not sure I understand this comment. Trump deserves points for being transparent about his disdain for liberal democratic values? Not sure that's a flex. Hmmm.
SanjayMehta 1 day ago||
All US presidents from Truman onwards were liars, hypocrites and war criminals. Trump is the only one who doesn't try to hide it.
farceSpherule 1 day ago||
[dead]
jonstewart 1 day ago||
ODNI also did not publish its quadrennial Global Trends report last year, even though it was written. It probably talked too much about the rise of fascism.
constantius 1 day ago||
It seems like it won't be a popular opinion given the comments, but: a three-letter-agency, especially the CIA, maintaining a "factbook" always seemed like an oxymoron to me. Indeed it was an oft-cited source in research and school essays, and for the most part it was certainly accurate, but, as many tools of propaganda, that veneer of accuracy could be a useful cover for the small portions of reality where truth was inconvenient.

As an example in recent memory: the World Factbook has been heavily cited lately to argue against the idea of a genocide in Gaza. Maybe a year or so ago, the Factbook was updated, and it claimed that the population in Gaza had grown: no decrease, no inflection point in growth, nothing to see... That claim was in heavy rotation, as soon as it was published.

That the espionage agency of the main weapons supplier to Israel would publish such a claim felt grotesque, and the claim itself seemed ridiculous, impossible, based on even evidenced peripheral information (the 90+% of people displaced, the destruction of all hospitals, the deaths of so many aid workers, the levels of starvation), but... the Factbook claimed it, so it became true to many.

It would be impossible to quantify the effect of this, how many days of horror it added, how many more debates those trying to stop the killing had to do, how much fewer donations were sent to aid workers. But an effect it certainly had.

throw263586 1 day ago|
[dead]
constantius 1 day ago||
I'm feeding a troll here, but for the benefit of those reading along:

The official numbers are a subset of all deaths: only deaths from direct military action are counted.

In most wars, excepting the shortest conflicts, those deaths are a minority of all deaths.

Even taking the numbers of Save the Children (and I'll let everyone decide whether they're likely an overestimate or an underestimate), it's difficult to think that for every 4 people killed in this slaughter, only 1 person died of hunger, disease, chronic illness, childbirth, age, etc., etc., etc.

Over 2 years.

throw263586 1 day ago||
This is not true. The Gaza Health Ministry published all deaths.

You can’t just speculate and make up your own numbers and then complain that sources are not reliable.

constantius 1 day ago||
My friend, since you were able to produce the Save the Children post, I can only assume that you're also aware of the methodology of the MoH, which means that you're just lying now...

That methodology is not secret or subject to interpretation: their numbers do not include the deaths I've mentioned. Not even the deaths of people buried under the rubble!

riazrizvi 1 day ago|
An outdated service that belongs to the era of encyclopedia. Wikipedia moved us past it. ChatGPT has moved us so far past it, it's become a relic.
BLKNSLVR 1 day ago||
Isn't it essentially a source for both of those things?

If all the sources dry up then LLM 'facts' will be time constrained.

input_sh 1 day ago|||
That's the idea, yes. Kill all primary sources, wound all secondary sources (examples: WaPo or "Grokipedia"), convince everyone that they should use this tertiary source whose full control is in the hands of a very few.

It being a technology that inherently has plausible deniability when it for example starts referring to itself as Mecha-Hitler is a feature, not a bug!

rileymat2 1 day ago||||
It aggregates many public sources, so much of it is findable, but not all.
SanjayMehta 1 day ago|||
Which means resources like real encyclopaedias will again become financially viable.
kshahkshah 1 day ago|||
ChatGPT and Wikipedia are not primary sources of information.
serf 1 day ago||
a primary source is not inherently the accurate one, and collab tools like wikipedia allow for more sources -- this makes the difference.

yeah it's game-able, and a bad actor can ruin work, but we're comparing it to a literal singular gospel source of information from a three letter agency.

p.s. I noticed I used an em dash, appropriately or not. i'm leaving it in. I like it. maybe im turning bot. changing the way I speak/type to avoid being taken that way irks me to hell.

rileymat2 1 day ago|||
I don’t think this is true, some of the data is not clean and is created through estimates and modeling, I’d not trust ChatGpt to get this right, and adding your own uncited models or estimates to wikipedia will get it deleted.
VikingCoder 1 day ago|||
The World Factbook wasn't prone to hallucinations, intentional omissions, the whims of billionaires, or the unstated goals of astroturfing groups.

If the government has somewhere to tell you what it thinks is true, you can use that to double-check another part of the government that's misleading you on that same data. You can also double-check it against other sources of truth to gain insight about potential manipulation in one or more of the systems.

Here's one hot take:

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/a-well-informed-electorat...

vachina 1 day ago|||
LLM’s memory recall is extremely lossy. Facts should not be lossy.
threethirtytwo 1 day ago||
This is so stupid. Wikipedia needs sources and citations in order to construct articles, and chatgpt needs training data to build it's models. The CIA world fact book sits at the core of training and wikipedia citations. It is the inception point of all these other services you use.
0cf8612b2e1e 1 day ago||
It probably also costs nothing to make. The CIA maintains dedicated analysts monitoring the world. Have those guys kick out a public report every once in a while sounds like the cheapest possible program.