#evidencesubversion — Public Fediverse posts

18/

The study [9] warns: "reasoning bots introduce nonrandom, #SystematicBias [...] Unlike random noise, which often attenuates effects, synthetic demand effects can produce results that appear plausible or even compelling"

#EvidenceSubversion risk:

"insidious because hypothesis-confirming data can be more difficult for even conscientious researchers to detect"
"risk is that such data [...] could inadvertently lead to a proliferation of false positives, undermining the scientific process"

2/

The OECD report [1] also notes:

"Internet platforms and social media also make it easier to spread false and misleading information. Some actors may do so deliberately to distort public debates and fuel #polarisation. At times this may form part of a #HybridWarfare tactic, to erode the social fabric of open societies and weaken their defences. Such #disinformation campaigns have already been observed"

This may recall the #EvidenceSubversion risk in science
(thread: https://hostux.social/@dderigo/113523640776941306)

9/

The authors [4] define "the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base" as "evidence hacking". I'd prefer the term "#EvidenceCracking" or "#EvidenceSubversion", as #hacking ("Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or not" [5]) is a very misleading term for this.

Instead, it migth recall the idea by C. Grimsley of "pseudo-hacking" as radical denaturing [6] "which superficially resemble hacking but lack the necessary sensitivity to social context"