George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
What are the consequences of leveraging unaccountable knowledge as a technology-enabled and focused society that seemingly can command the breadth of human wisdom and knowledge at our fingertips (or favored input device)?
Is there such a thing as unaccountable knowledge, or is knowledge neutral of this consideration?
Saving Changes...
Can you clarify what you mean by "unaccountable" knowledge as I'm not clear on the concept? Do you mean partial knowledge (as in, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) or something else?
Kiron
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Jul 08, 2024 3:51 PM
George Freeman
...
Hi Kiron,
Here’s my pass at clarity:
If stated in its positive form, “accountable knowledge” is evidence-based knowledge; thus, “unaccountable knowledge” is knowledge lacking evidential strength or transparency.
The question finds its purpose in ascertaining what knowledge is or should be in a society that consumes so-called knowledge fast food style from a marketplace of mediums that acquires information from known and unknown sources and whose evidential strength is not exposed or made clear/explicit.
George
Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Jul 08, 2024 3:05 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
George -
Can you clarify what you mean by "unaccountable" knowledge as I'm not clear on the concept? Do you mean partial knowledge (as in, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) or something else?
Kiron
Hi Kiron,
Here’s my pass at clarity:
If stated in its positive form, “accountable knowledge” is evidence-based knowledge; thus, “unaccountable knowledge” is knowledge lacking evidential strength or transparency.
The question finds its purpose in ascertaining what knowledge is or should be in a society that consumes so-called knowledge fast food style from a marketplace of mediums that acquires information from known and unknown sources and whose evidential strength is not exposed or made clear/explicit.
Gotcha. I'd suggest that this a similar challenge which search engines face and have worked around which is figuring out the order in which hits are presented.
For AI models, one approach might be to look at the number of times a given knowledge item is referenced by established publications within that industry.
Without some sort of evaluation or weighting done, we continue to risk "garbage in, garbage out".
The challenge gets worse as the outputs of first-level consumers become the data inputs of second or tertiary-level ones. This is similar to the dilution or hiding of risk which happened with the bundling of toxic loans during the last financial crisis.
All said, my mantra of "don't trust AND do verify" for AI outputs remains...
Kiron Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
“Don’t trust AND do verify” is a healthy mantra, but before we discuss “knowledge distribution mechanics,” it would seem appropriate to define what knowledge is and its relationship to truth.
Although the definitions are endless, here are some generalizations of what knowledge is:
- [Epistemology] Truth is a condition of knowledge.
- [Health Care] For information to be considered knowledge, it must be true.
- [Academia] Knowledge has a relationship with truth.
- [Sciences] Knowledge is acquired through experimentation, observation, and measurement.
- [Wikipedia] Knowledge is content derived from a verifiable and reliable source. A contributor’s perspective of truth cannot be the sole influencer of the content. Stated differently, “Verifiability, not truth” drives allowed content.
From a project professional’s perspective, “What should knowledge be?” Saving Changes...
"Every child is born blessed with a vivid imagination. But just as muscles grow flabby with disuse, so the bright imagination of a child pales in later years if he ceases to exercise it."
