Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Episode 448 - A Podcast about a Podcast About Conspiracy Theories
0 Plays2 seconds ago
Copyright be damned; Josh and M want you to know about a podcast about conspiracy theories, the contents of which are so scandalous that Josh and M play the entirety of that podcast in their very own!
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction and Hosts' Locale
00:00:04
Speaker
The podcast's guide to the conspiracy featuring Josh Addison and Em Denteth.
00:00:16
Speaker
Hello and welcome to the podcast's guide to the conspiracy. in ah In a humid, rainy Auckland, if you can hear the background noise, I am Josh Addison. And in Shuhai, China, the spirits will move you in odd and hysterical ways. It's Associate Professor Em R. X. Denteth.
00:00:33
Speaker
I mean, that could be the tag time to any of the Mr. Vampire films. But it's not. It's scrouched.
Chinese Mythology and Hopping Vampires
00:00:41
Speaker
I'm still thinking about Mr. Vampire, the hopping vampire-slash-ghostsmith of Chinese mythology made into a series of very bizarre films, not bizarre in that the films themselves have bizarre plots, and that the first film is a historical piece about a Chinese vampire being constrained by a family, and the sequel
00:01:06
Speaker
is set in the then-present day of the, I think, late 1970s, early 1980s. Despite that, it's a sequel to a film set in a historical period. And then the third film, which is a sequel to the second film, goes back to it being a period piece. It is a very, very confusing franchise. And that's accepting the fact that vampires in Chinese mythology hop. Yes. Do they only hop when they have the seal on the forehead?
00:01:36
Speaker
Or do they just do it always for fun? ah So it's I've been told it's hopping because the motion of a ghost reflects the way that corpses are carried. So you'd
Academic Updates and Conspiracy Theory Paper
00:01:49
Speaker
basically hoist a corpse over your bank, and so the motion of the ghost actually reflects the way they were carried in death, is what I've been told. I may be completely wrong about that, but that is what I've been told. And now I'm telling you, so you are told. Are you told, Josh? Yes, you're told. Yes.
00:02:06
Speaker
Welcome to the podcaster's guide to Chinese spiritual monster things. And that's all we have to say from the podcaster's guide to spiritual Chinese monster things. So, join us next week for our final episode of here where we recap this episode, one of the most unusual and nothingly podcasters' guide to the conspiracy. Right. No, actual actual actual conspiracies and actual podcasts. I spoke before you began. Have you been up to anything interesting academically over the last fortnight?
00:02:34
Speaker
So
Emotional Impact of Conspiracy Beliefs
00:02:35
Speaker
mostly I've been marking because it is the end of the semester here. So my students have been submitting me essay plans, which I've been marking in preparation for the essays, which are due in in a week's time. So that's exciting. I also wrote a commentary piece.
00:02:54
Speaker
for a paper coming out in Psychological Inquiry, which I'm sure we'll talk about next year when the paper is published and my commentary on the paper is published at the same time and the reply to my commentary.
00:03:10
Speaker
is published, although it would be a reply just to my commentary, it'll be a reply to all of the commentaries which have been solicited for this particular paper, which is an interesting piece because it's on the emotional consequences of belief in conspiracy theories. And I think there's a really interesting project there, but I would like the researchers to also think about the emotional consequences to conspiracy theories that turn out to be true.
00:03:40
Speaker
Oh, that's something to to think about for the new year. But it's not the new year, it's the old year. The dying remnants of 2024. Yes, the dying embers of 2024. A year that gave us so little. So very little.
00:03:57
Speaker
Although, as we will talk about in this week's bonus episode, had a strong finish. But anyway.
Copyright Law and Podcast Plans
00:04:05
Speaker
Possibly too strong, actually. Possibly just a little bit too strong. yeah Anyway, so we have something a little bit different to talk about today.
00:04:13
Speaker
Yes, we're going to break copyright law. We're going to break copyright law in a huge way this week because this week we are listening to someone else's podcast and we're going to be playing clips of that podcast and not just clips of that podcast, that podcast in its entirety as clips we don't care about what these people think we don't care about their careers we only care about what they're saying because what they're saying is controversial and we want to get to the bottom of it i don't know what they're saying is controversial but the fact that they're saying it now yes we we we have
00:04:51
Speaker
It has come into our possession, this eight minute podcast episode. You'll see why we think it's worth talking about and that it's short enough that we can um say the play the whole lot for you, consequences be damned. um
Nature of Conspiracy Theories
00:05:08
Speaker
So I guess we should just stop beating around the bush and listen to what these, I believe, nameless people have to say. Well, they'll remain nameless, although we will reveal their identity at the very end of this episode. Yeah. At some point in this podcast, we will reveal their identities and their ill repute backgrounds. Is that the right word? i was like a salupious background to vutin and So the doesn't really the right the the right word anyway.
00:05:41
Speaker
there it's a rum doing and we're going to get to the bottom of that rum do right well so you've you've got the clips all queued up i have let's play a chime and then we'll roll straight into a podcast on conspiracy theories you and your chimes
00:06:02
Speaker
So you're out there wondering, do conspiracy theories actually have any value? Well, it just so happened that's exactly what we're diving into today. And we've got a whole bunch of research papers from academics and philosophers who are tackling this very question. And it feels like these theories are everywhere, right? More relevant than ever. Totally. It's like every day there's some new theory popping up. Yeah. But hold on a sec. Before we go full on down the
Watergate and Investigative Journalism
00:06:28
Speaker
rabbit hole, maybe we should take a step back. You know how we use the term conspiracy theory? Almost like it automatically means something's way out there. Right. Like if it's a conspiracy, it can't possibly be true. Exactly. But here's the thing.
00:06:42
Speaker
Conspiracies, you know, actual secret plots, those happen. Just look at court cases. Oh, all the time. Organized crime, some companies scheming to collude. Heck, even a couple of people plotting to commit a little fraud. Those are all classic conspiracies. Right. So.
00:06:57
Speaker
What do you think, John? What do you think? Well, I mean, so far, so generic, really. Do conspiracy theories have any value? I find it fascinating that they they mention that they' they've read a whole bunch of research papers by academics and scholars in general. What intrigues me and also frustrates me about this podcast, they mention not a single academic by-name throughout the entire recording. So they go, oh, we're referring to literature. They never actually give any citations. Yes, a lot of speaking in general, general terms so far, but I guess a good start to say conspiracies do actually happen.
00:07:42
Speaker
and um I mean, it can even be about, as they say, a little bit of fraud. A little bit of fraud. Just a little bit of fraud. Companies scheming to collude, actually, that means, but it does it doesn't sound good. It does sound conspiratorial. It does. Shall we continue? let's Let's do that. And history's packed with them. Take Watergate, for example. Ooh, good one. Because at first, a lot of folks brushed off the whole break-in thing, the White House connection. They thought it was a little far-fetched.
00:08:10
Speaker
Okay, so what's the lesson there? If those Watergate folks were supposedly so powerful, how'd they get tripped up? Ah, see,
Importance of Investigative Work
00:08:18
Speaker
that's where it gets interesting. It wasn't just one thing, but a whole bunch of factors coming together. You had journalists like Woodward and Bernstein. Those guys were relentless. Never let the story go. And of course, there was deep throat, you know, that a high ranking government official leaking info, blowing the whistle, so to speak. So a real life conspiracy brought down because the truth? Well, it found a way out.
00:08:42
Speaker
Which makes you wonder, for all those conspiracy theories that hang around, is it really that no one's speaking up or are we just not hearing those voices for whatever reason? Now you're getting to the heart of it. Some argue a real genuine conspiracy would never ever see the light of day. But Watergate and a ton of other examples, they show that's just not how the world works. Information has a way of slipping out sooner or later. Who is the some?
00:09:06
Speaker
Who are some arguing here? It'd be nice to know who these some people are. I mean, I could name names. Why aren't they naming names? They've done the literature review according to the start of the podcast. Who were they talking about? Who is making these claims? Yes, again, they like to speak in very general terms, fairly generic statements. um An interesting question of does no one speak up about conspiracy theories or do we just not hear those voices? I would have said yes to both in some cases. Certainly over time. The other thing which gets me is they talk about how truth found a way out. There's a weirdly passive way they're talking about the investigation of conspiracy theories and that Woodward and Bernstein kind of
00:09:57
Speaker
They found out about a conspiracy, as opposed to they engaged in investigative journalism to ferret the truth out. So it's almost as if they're going, look, we know conspiracies occur, and we know that some conspiracy theories are true, but they still can't. really reject the pejorative implication of the term conspiracy theory. So they talk about the realisation of conspiracy theories being true is some kind of passive act as opposed to, no, in some cases, and many would say in many cases when actual conspiracies
Appeal of Conspiracy Theories
00:10:31
Speaker
are exposed, it requires investigative work, it requires serious cognitive effort.
00:10:37
Speaker
Yes, I mean, if in in their own example, they're not just talking about truth, just just finding a way out. It was found a way out because people started looking into it, and with with with ah with with an inside source in the form of deep throat, but yeah.
00:10:52
Speaker
Well, it's interesting. The Deep Throat thing is kind of fascinating in its own respect. Because if you read All the President's Men, one of the things that Deep Throat keeps telling Woodwood and Bernstein is you're getting this wrong. that You're not looking in the right location. You're looking at the wrong things. So it's almost as if it's not a symbiotic relationship between Woodwood and Bernstein and Deep Throat. It's more Woodwood and Bernstein throwing darts at a board.
00:11:17
Speaker
And Deep Throat go, no, no, that's the wrong target. No, try again. Try again. Look, i can't I can't tell you what I know. I can just go, no, no, no. Don't don't look there. Look there. e Okay. Well, what what's what's next for our peer of podcasters? Let's find out. Okay. But that still doesn't quite explain the appeal, right? Yeah. Why do some people find these theories so alluring?
00:11:41
Speaker
Is it all about distrusting authority figures? Or is there something more to it? I mean, it seems like these theories often play on real anxieties people have about who's really in control, you know? Like,
Conspiracy Theories as Puzzles
00:11:53
Speaker
is it really so out there to think those in charge might be twisting things to benefit themselves?
00:11:58
Speaker
You've hit on something really important there. It's not just about distrust, but also this very human need we have for explanations for stories that help us make sense of the world. And that's especially true when we're talking about events that feel huge, scary, life changing. OK, I get that. Like say a global pandemic.
00:12:16
Speaker
It's unsettling, turns everything upside down. It's only natural to want some kind of explanation, some reason, WHY, besides just it happened. Exactly. And that's where conspiracy theories come in. They offer that sense of order, the idea that someone somewhere is pulling the strings, even if their motives aren't exactly admirable. Plus, a lot of them have this puzzle-like quality that's just inherently intriguing. Like you've got to decipher the hidden clues, connect the dots that they are trying to keep hidden.
00:12:43
Speaker
precisely And once again, they seem to be slipping into a kind of pejorative mode of conspiracy theory here. So they start off by going, well look, conspiracy theories can be true. But when they're talking about the appeal of conspiracy theories, they seem to be talking about the appeal of not just suspicious seeming conspiracy theories.
00:13:02
Speaker
but deservedly suspicious conspiracy theories, the unwarranted conspiracy theories. Why are people attracted towards those? So it's almost as if they're talking about different things at different points. Yeah, just in terms of the structure of the podcast, that was quite a quite a jarring segue, really. It's conspiracies, things come up, truth finds a way. That doesn't really explain
Endurance and Skepticism of Theories
00:13:25
Speaker
why they're popular, though. We'll know, because it it nothing to do with why they're popular. and it was It was a bit of a swerve onto this topic, but once they were there, yeah, yeah, I mean, I guess this this is where we sort of moved off of philosophy into psychology, really, for a little bit there, of just why do people like these things called conspiracies. But yes, as you say, um they do seem, I mean, although they don't give any examples here, they do seem to be talking more more about the fishy ones.
00:13:52
Speaker
Also, I should point out our podcast would never swerve in such a way. We'd never go off topic. We are rigid in our topicality. We're so rigid right now. Shall we continue? Yes, please. But, and this is crucial, while that puzzle solving aspect can be fun, it can also send us down a slippery slope. Also,
00:14:16
Speaker
Well, remember how we were talking about Watergate needing those cracks, those leaks for the truth to surface? Conspiracy theories, especially the ones that linger without any real proof, they require you to distrust not just a single source, but whole systems. So it's not just the government, but the scientists backing them up, the media reporting on it, the experts who say there's no evidence. It's like everyone's in on it.
00:14:39
Speaker
It can start to feel that way, and that's what academics call mature conspiracy theories. These are the ones that have been around a while, investigated up and down, but still no solid evidence emerges. Like the moon landing being
Information Silos and Epistemic Bubbles
00:14:50
Speaker
fake. People have been saying that for ages. Exactly. To keep believing those theories, you have to believe not only that the event was staged, but that every single person who's looked into it since then is either part of some massive cover-up or totally clueless.
00:15:04
Speaker
Talk about a whole lot of distrust. And to be honest, it's kind of insulting to those people, isn't it? Assuming everyone's either lying or a complete fool. Right. Now, we finally actually have what I can spot to be an actual reference to the literature here, which is mature unwarranted conspiracy theories as espoused by Brian Alkely in Of Conspiracy Theories as published back in 1999.
00:15:30
Speaker
Apologies to Brian in advance, but it's not that scholars refer to mature conspiracy theories, a subset of scholars do, the philosophers who are interested in discussion of conspiracy theories. But at least we have a reference to the literature, although frustratingly, not actually he mentioned who actually coined that term.
00:15:52
Speaker
No, no. But yes, it was nice to see a recognisable term from the literature show up. And, yeah, again, do rule it still seems quite quite sort of generic, just the the general statements of, yes, these things can be can be worrying because of the amount of stuff you have to believe or give up trust in to to hold to us, which again are themes that we've seen in articles before, but still stated in fairly general terms.
00:16:22
Speaker
And once again, we've got this kind of weird view on conspiracy theories being revealed to the public with the information getting out through the
Healthy Skepticism vs. Conspiracy Beliefs
00:16:31
Speaker
cracks. So once again, it's not the investigative efforts of Woodward and Bernstein, which is leading towards belief in a warranted conspiracy theory. It's almost as if Woodward and Bernstein simply walked past a ah conspiracy theory that was cracking open at the time. And we're just fortuitously there.
00:16:49
Speaker
as opposed to following hunches and engaging in investigation. So even though, once again, they start the piece with a non-projorative gloss on conspiracy theories, they seem to have a fairly pejorative notion of what a conspiracy theory is, or at least how the truth of conspiracy theories gets out. It's not due to active investigation, it's more like a force of nature.
00:17:16
Speaker
Okay, well, where where do they take it from here then? Let's see. And that kind of constant distrust, it can trap you in what researchers call an information silo, or epistemic bubble. You end up only seeing information that backs up what you already believe, making it nearly impossible to consider other explanations.
00:17:33
Speaker
So you're less likely to encounter those inconsistencies in the story, those different viewpoints that might make you reconsider. Exactly. And that's why it's so important to be aware of this human tendency, this need for patterns and explanations. Because while it can lead to some pretty amazing discoveries, it can also lead us down some pretty dark and twisted paths.
00:17:54
Speaker
It's almost like our brains are wired to find those patterns, even when they might not really be there. But here's what I'm struggling with a little. If being too distrusting is a trap, how do you find that balance? Like how do you stay critical of information without just dismissing everything as a potential conspiracy? Oh,
Critical Thinking Against Theories
00:18:10
Speaker
that's the million dollar question, isn't it? A million dollar question indeed. Interesting use of the term researchers.
00:18:19
Speaker
for coming talking about information silos and epistemic problems. I mean, i guess I guess this is research, isn't it? But I ah tend to think of research as more of a practical thing than a epistemological, theoretical thing. Anyway, it doesn't matter. yeah i mean It is like a use precise use of language here. I don't think these people are philosophers.
00:18:44
Speaker
But yes, no and it's it's nice to see we're now looking at the other side of things, though. They acknowledge that yes, being trusting of of whatever conspiracy theorists say might be a bad thing, but you also don't want to be too skeptical also.
00:18:56
Speaker
Yeah, but the evolutionary argument, they're also going down here with the HADs, the hyperactive agency detection system, the idea that from an evolutionary perspective, we're kind of hard coded to spot agency in the environment, which is one of those things that sounds like a really nice idea, but because it's an idea in evolutionary psychology, and evolutionary psychology is basically all just a set of just so stuff. stories we we can go well look it looks like there's a device here but we can't actually prove there is because there's no way to run historical tests to actually go that this is something which came out of our evolutionary history and there is a big literature in psychology as to the utility of the hads as a
00:19:44
Speaker
concept. But that may just be me bouncing off my any mention of evolutionary psychology. It it gets my hackles up. And you know, Josh, I don't like having my hackles raised. I think my hackles smooth. You're notorious for your hackles. Yes, that's true. Well, let's let's let's see if we can smooth them back down again by listening to the next section. And the answer, well, it's a bit nuanced, like most things we're thinking about. It's about developing a healthy amount of skepticism.
00:20:13
Speaker
Think of it like um like tasting a glass of wine. You wouldn't just gulp it down in one go, right? Take your time, savor it, think about where it came from, what makes it unique.
00:20:24
Speaker
So we need to, what, savor information. I like that. Really break it down, see what it's made of. Exactly. Ask yourself, who's giving me this information? What are their biases, their motivations? Do they stand to gain anything if I believe what they're saying? And then look at the evidence or lack thereof. And I don't just mean anecdotes or personal stories. I'm talking about verifiable facts. Does the claim hold water when you really scrutinize it? So it's more about being discerning, not just accepting something because it sounds good or fits into what we already believe.
00:20:54
Speaker
I want to point out, not everything is is nuanced. there are There are some views which are not very nuanced at all that I think most people generally agree are good views, such as Nazis are bad. You
Impact of Harmful Theories
00:21:08
Speaker
don't have to have any nuance when you think about Nazis being bad. It's just a brute fact about the world. There's no need to be nuanced about it.
00:21:15
Speaker
So the idea that nuanced views are inherently good is something I think we should be pushing back upon. Because that's the kind of sensible centrism that allows social media science to go, well, maybe we should have a few Nazis on board just so that we can see what they're thinking. The wine tasting metaphor was a little bit labored, but I guess I see there at their point. You should not mindlessly consume information. You should look into it and and and see if you can detect notes of of heat and earthy tones.
00:21:46
Speaker
that tickle the pellet on the way to the end of your point in life. I mean, that's the kind of things you need to look for on wine, I believe. Or maybe that's just sauvignon blancs. I mean, I also am not a big wine drink. I'm more of a beer drinker or a whiskey drinker. And also, it turns out, if you look if you look at the literature on wine tasting, most people can't distinguish between a white and a red if you blindfold them. So actually, wine tasting is a really bad metaphor. It turns out people are not very good at discerning wine.
00:22:16
Speaker
I have heard that sort of double blind type taste tests show that even experienced wine tasters really can't tell a good one from a bad one a lot of the time. Anyway, enough enough bagging of wine and wine tasters. We're now we're now getting into more of a what's the term polemical maybe tone to it. We're actually giving advice on what people should do rather than just talking about these wacky things we call conspiracy theories, which Fair enough, I guess, um but another another another change in direction, but not as sharp a swerve as we saw before. No. So let's see where they go next when they talk about a radio guy. Absolutely. And this is especially important when we're dealing with theories that could potentially cause harm. Yeah, let's talk about that for a second. Because up until now, we've been mostly focused on this idea of distrust, but not so much on what happens when people buy into some of these theories. What are the real world consequences?
00:23:11
Speaker
Right. And that's a crucial distinction to make because, sure, believing the earth is flat, it's factually wrong, but it's not likely to cause widespread damage. But then you have theories like the one connecting vaccines to autism. Now that one's had a real and honestly pretty devastating impact on public health because people stopped vaccinating their kids based on that misinformation. Exactly. Cases of preventable diseases popped up because people fell for it. And that's where we really need to be careful. Because sometimes these theories aren't just about people being misled. They're being deliberately spread for malicious reasons. Think of someone like, oh, I don't know, Alex Jones. Oh, yeah, the radio guy. He's been in some hot water over the things he says, hasn't he? Yeah, you could say that.
00:23:55
Speaker
He was ordered to pay millions in damages for promoting that conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax. That wasn't just him
Curiosity and Critical Thinking
00:24:04
Speaker
theorizing, that was straight up spreading harmful lies that caused real pain and suffering to families who had already lost so much.
00:24:12
Speaker
Alex Jones, the radio guy. He is the radio guy. and he's He's been in some hot water. There's no denying that. It's true. I mean, the radio guy seems like a weird way to describe a little bit. jones I mean, he is syndicated on radio, but his major platform is a streaming platform. It's online. Yes. Yeah. But yes. Consequences. Consequences. Oh, yeah. Yeah, fine. Another thing that has been mentioned in the in the literature more I mean, the the negative consequences of conspiracy theorizing to my recollection has more shown up in your Sunstein and Vermeule style. What do we need to do about this papers than just talking about them? But it's a topic. It's a topic in conspiracy theories. So I guess it makes sense that they move on to that.
00:24:56
Speaker
Yeah, it's a big topic in the social sciences given that a large chunk of the social psychological literature is on the adverse consequences of belief in conspiracy theories and some limited discussion as to what we can do to prevent or ameliorate those adverse consequences. So it is kind of frustrating that they they gesture towards consequences And they talk at the beginning of the podcast about how there's all this literature they've read. They don't really say anything of any particular depth or note.
00:25:32
Speaker
Interesting to see them moving on from the the quite sort of passive wording before of of of truth finding a way out. Now they're talking about people actively spreading misinformation. Yes, although once again, that gives them a pejorative mode for conspiracy theories, because that seems to suggest that the conspiracy theories are a species of misinformation. And yet they start out by not making that conflation. Yeah, right. We must be nearly at the end. we One more or two clips left. We have one more segment left. We are at the end. Okay, let's steal yourself, Josh, yep for a conclusion. Yep. So it's the difference between genuinely trying to make sense of things, even if you go down some rabbit holes along the way, and purposely pushing falsehoods that have real world consequences for people.
00:26:19
Speaker
Exactly. And that's a line we gotta be careful not to cross. It's one thing to entertain a theory, to be curious and explore possibilities, but it's a whole other ballgame to spread misinformation, especially when it could put others at risk. Wow, this has really been eye-opening. So, for our listeners out there, the ones who are super intrigued by conspiracy theories, what's the most important thing they should take away from our deep dive today?
00:26:42
Speaker
I think it really boils down to this. Curiosity is fantastic. A healthy dose of skepticism is important, but at the end of the day, it's critical thinking that's key. Don't be afraid to question things, to dig deeper, to challenge even your own assumptions. But as you do that, always, always remember to root your exploration in evidence, empathy, and a genuine desire for truth wherever that journey might take you.
00:27:04
Speaker
What a great note to wrap up on. Be curious, be critical, and above all, be kind. Deep
Podcast Critique
00:27:10
Speaker
dive. Eight minute deep dive into conspiracy theories. Eight minutes of deep, deep diving. So deep, such a dive. a yes i mean But gosh, we're meant to be kind. We're meant to be kind. Be critical and be kind. Be kindly critical. Yeah, I mean that last bag is just just just a bit of wrap up and It's almost as if they ran out of things to say. guess oh ah Be curious, think deeply, and be nice to one another. Also, watch Buckaroo Bandai and Adventures against Across the Eight Dimension, but don't read the sequel comic book, because it's it's really, really bad. I mean, it's really, really bad in a sinister, racist, and sexist way. So watch the film, because that's all about being kind. Don't read the comic book. It's about being cruel.
00:27:59
Speaker
I'm glad I have it. So that was an eight minute deep dive into conspiracy theories by a couple of people who spend a good 50% of the time, I would say, kind of filling filling space a little bit with segues and connective twaddle.
00:28:19
Speaker
um I feel fairly confident in saying that these people are fools. They're almost
AI-Generated Content Revelation
00:28:25
Speaker
certainly dangerous communists, probably arsonists. Physically ugly, Josh. Physically ugly.
00:28:34
Speaker
ah and and quite frankly should be in jail. And I can say that quite safely for reasons that you're now about to explain. Because these people do not exist. This is a podcast generated from the works of Brian L. Keeley fed into an LLM and then produced as a podcast by, and I'm putting here in quotes,
00:28:57
Speaker
the generative artificial intelligence that has produced such a marvellous eight-minute deep dive based upon Brian's work. Was it all of Brian's work? He said he put his work in. I'm assuming it's most of his work, if not all of his work. And that is what an AI has been able to gleam from his work, that eight minutes of twaddle. Yes, I mean, where there was substantive
AI's Role in Content Creation
00:29:26
Speaker
stuff about conspiracy theories, I don't think anything like contradicted anything
00:29:31
Speaker
Brian would have said. That was all very general. All kinds of consistent in a really vague way. So nothing they say would be something that you might go, Brian would go, oh, he would pale at that claim being made based upon his work. But at the same time,
00:29:49
Speaker
Nothing they say is a particularly deep or informative thing. And the one thing where they start getting into his work, the idea of mature unwarranted conspiracy theories, they don't even really talk about the the problems that Brian discusses. about diagnosing whether a conspiracy theory really is mature or not. They just mentioned that there are some conspiracy theories which have persisted in discourse for a period of time, and that makes them mature and suspicious. But there's an entire discussion in Brian's work about, you know, are they really mature? What kind of evidence would be put forward?
00:30:28
Speaker
You might expect some things that look mature to not turn out to be mature upon investigation, because evidence might appear at a later point, because conspirators are good at hiding what they do, according to at least some descriptions of particular conspiracy theories. So yeah, nothing contradicts Brian per se, but nothing seems particularly informative either. I would be annoyed at that kind of podcast being produced as a gloss on my work for the sheer fact that it just seems to be trying to be all things to all people without ever a making any definite claims.
00:31:11
Speaker
Yeah, I'd be interested to know more about the sort of the process and the prompts that the LLM was given to to make that. Was it simply, you know, make make a short podcast that sums everything up or was it just, here's everything go in eight minutes was the best it could do. I don't know.
00:31:29
Speaker
Well hopefully later this week I'll be talking with Brian to find out more about that particular process. I was hoping to actually get in contact with him before we record this podcast but it's finals week in the US and then he's going to be traveling so he was unable to book a time with me before things were basically before deadlines were due.
00:31:53
Speaker
in Clémont and travel began. So hopefully later this week I can find out exactly what the process was and what he thinks of the podcast that was generated from his work.
00:32:08
Speaker
So, I mean, this this now leads into the section of this episode where we basically spend, I don't know, what do you reckon? A good 20 minutes, maybe half an hour slagging off AI. I could do hours, Josh. Absolutely. Yes, no, neither of us are particularly um fond of... i I refuse to use it. I have not used an LLM and I do not want to use an LLM.
00:32:33
Speaker
I don't like the fact that I know academics who are using LLMs to generate drafts of papers that are summaries of views in order to then draft papers. I'm really, really not keen on the idea of people going, oh, board of writing, I'm going to let an AI do it instead.
00:32:58
Speaker
Someone is really going for it on the street outside my house. It's an AI train to escape, George. It's heard. It's heard it's who what's going on. It's trying to escape. I've had a very brief ah play with chat GPT just to see what all the fuss was about. and I can certainly see why they grab people's attention. the that the The amount that they can come up with based off of a very small prompt is impressive. It's just usually quite like like one of the things I did was was say, give me an introduction for a podcast called the podcast is going to the conspiracy. And it came up with something that was all perfectly grammatical and sounded like a thing a human being would say, but also very generic and lacking in any sort of real substance, which is
00:33:42
Speaker
a lot of the problem, I think, with some what we just listened to, I think. um I mentioned this on um on Blue Sky the other week. You and I, you've you've seen Evil Speak, haven't you? The Clint
Limitations of AI in Philosophy
00:33:57
Speaker
Howard, Clint Howard summons demonic pigs movie? No, I don't think I have. No, it's fine one one I watched a while ago. It's 1981, Clint Howard,
00:34:10
Speaker
Back when he was young and not as frankly funny looking as he is today, um he plays a bullied cadet at a military academy who finds like this this magical grim wire of some evil wizard and summons demonic pigs to exact revenge on his tormentors. But the important thing is, ah for some reason, like they had access is to a computer lab or something.
00:34:34
Speaker
And so his character goes into the computer lab at his military academy and uses a computer to translate this magical book and summon the devil. And it has bits of like him typing into a command line, what are the ingredients for a black mass? And the computer immediately telling him how to perform a black mass. And I remember watching that at the time, this would have been 10 years ago or something long before AI started showing up in its current form and thinking, hu Look at this film from 1981 where people honestly thought computers were just magic, didn't they? They thought you could just type stuff into a command line and it just knew everything. Those poor, credulous fools. That's one of the only problems in John Carpenter's The Thing.
00:35:16
Speaker
Is the computer program with a type in? How long will it take for the thing to infect everyone? And it gives an instantaneous answer. because yeah i mean sorry did you ah Did you write a program in your spare time before the thing even arrived at your arctic station?
00:35:35
Speaker
trying to work out a simulation method to work out if a virus or something occurs, how long would it take to infect the entire planet? Because it just seems that they go, well, I mean, computers can do anything. It is one of the only things about the thing which just never looked right and still looks stupid to this day.
00:35:54
Speaker
Yes, but I mean, so I watched these off. I could have, I probably should have actually talked about war gangs, because that's a film people have actually all seen, and it's the same phenomenon. But anyway, if you want to play a game, people used to think our computers are just magical boxes that can do anything. And then I see how they look at the likes of aliens these days in the car. And I actually People do kind of think computers are just magical boxes that you can put anything in.
00:36:16
Speaker
i guess i mean i guess the the only is We're probably speaking to the converted if you're listening to this podcast, but but just in case, I think the only thing we really need to emphasize is that things like chat GPT are not search engines. If you ask one a question,
00:36:32
Speaker
It'll give you an answer, it'll give you a very convincing sounding answer, but it did so by statistically predicting what a person might say to that question, not by actually looking up the answer in any sort of a database or repository of knowledge.
00:36:48
Speaker
You can learn anything about how LLMs work in the way that it converts a sentence into tokens and then does a problem a probabilistic matching of what token normally comes before and after that token. It explains why you get very generic results because it is basically telling you there's not an average of every user or at least every part of the lexicon.
00:37:16
Speaker
thinks about this. And it also explains why it has troubles working out how many R's there are in Strawberry, because it treats the double R token as being the same thing, which is why it then miscounts the number of letters in a word, a thing which a very simple program can do, and yet a very expensive to run both with power and environmental cost LLM can't do.
00:37:44
Speaker
We're replacing programs that work with LLMs that don't do the same job well. And apparently that's how we're meant to do things now. Yes. Yeah, no, so I mean, LLMs have a place. The thing that they seem to be... In hell. In hell.
00:38:02
Speaker
The thing that they seem to be best for is is filler, basically. I know lots of people who sort of yeah use them for form letters and stuff. And so it seems like if you just want content to fill space and you're not too... that sounds more or less right, that seems to be what they're good for. And that I think shows in things like this podcast that is very... um
Text-to-Speech Technology
00:38:22
Speaker
that that has just a lot of generic filler all the way through that doesn't end up saying an awful lot in many places.
00:38:31
Speaker
It's all filler, no Ben Stiller. I was though, quite impressed by the state of text to speech. So that that that is the one thing which I was impressed by, right down to the fact that there's the drawing in of breath.
00:38:46
Speaker
and also in some cases quite lengthy pauses. And that that intrigued me because when I'm editing the podcast, i'm I'm eradicating the drawing in of breath and I'm eradicating the long pauses. When the AI is creating the podcast, it's putting that stuff in. Yeah, i't I tend to... It's a bit of a judgment call for me sometimes on whether I leave in ah a... a breath or a pause, because sometimes it does indicate that we have you know thought for a second about what we're saying, which does color how you how you perceive it. But but I've used text-to-speech stuff in the past, and they have been doing the drawing-of-breath thing for a while. Most of the the ones I've used have been a little bit rubbish, though, which always which I always thought it was weird, actually, that you'd listen to this generated speech, and it was clever enough to put in breaths where a person would put a breath, and often clever enough
00:39:37
Speaker
to put in a longer breath when it knows there's a longer section of speech coming up, and yet the speech that it then spits out always sounds a little bit stilted and weird. Although, I don't know. like im In my day job, I'm actually using some text-to-speech stuff at the moment. And i said where we started using it, I sort of said, yeah, I get that we're doing it, and I get why we're doing it. It's nails on a chalkboard to me. i just It has a real uncanny valley feel to me. I can hear all the ways that it's not quite how a person speaks, although most of the first people I've seen this to have said, really? I thought it sounded great. So I don't know. the Maybe I'm too big. Actually, in terms of this one,
00:40:15
Speaker
I think if you'd given it to me, not telling me it was ah generated from an LLM, I might have been suspicious just by the the sort of the nature of the content and how it does sound. It does have that generic AI-produced sound, but I don't think I would have pegged it. But knowing in advance, listening to it, there were just a couple of bits where I was like, okay, that was a little bit off. There were pauses in the wrong place or a lack of pauses where you'd expect them just once or twice, but I wouldn't have spotted them otherwise, I don't think.
00:40:49
Speaker
Yeah, although I
AI's Philosophical Challenges
00:40:50
Speaker
was thinking about that earlier today because some of those weird pauses or cases where they take a swerve also could be artifacts in a real podcast from bad editing. So someone has It is at a section out because someone says something that they take to be incorrect. They say something salacious. Someone stumbles over some words. There's some background noise you can't get rid of. So you cut it out. and So suddenly the conversation goes from X to Z without going through Y.
00:41:23
Speaker
And someone is either editing pauses out or because they've edited some other section and they've put an extra long pause in by accident. These are things which could be editing mistakes. So yeah, there were certain points where a character would react with what or really which sounded weird.
00:41:44
Speaker
but at the same time also could have been a let's do that take again, and they've chosen a take which sounds better in the long run, but also is disconnected from the thing that was last said.
00:41:57
Speaker
And I thought it did a good job of having the two the two presenters sort of bouncing off each other as well. It was obviously, you know, it wasn't just something had been fed a single script and was reading through it. It obviously had, you know, the the one person speaking and the other person speaking and then sticking them together so they there could be slight overlaps when they'd be discussing something and things like that. so That being said, they never seem to have any particular character. So they sounded like two people having a conversation, but it didn't sound like two distinct characters having a conversation. So it'd be, I mean, a more convincing way of doing it would have been having, say, the skeptic and the conspiracy theorist having that conversation, as opposed to two people who are like-minded having that conversation. Which now makes me wonder, what do we sound like? I mean, we know each other's voices, but listeners might go, I mean, they basically just sound the same. We could just replace them both with an AI. Possibly. I don't know.
00:42:57
Speaker
For all you know, we already have. That's true. I mean, that would be the ultimate reveal. if Then we pull the curtain back and then Josh and Em start talking about the AI generated podcast response to an AI podcast. And actually we're the AI at this point. Are we the AI Josh? Are we the AI? I i died think they're just the AI.
00:43:20
Speaker
Hopefully. Or just the A. Or just the A. Maybe. Okay, that's enough staking off allylums. But an interesting look at the sorts of things that... It's interesting to look at what an allylum can make of philosophy, I guess. And i I think you hit the nail on there, actually. it's It's a lack of personality. I think that's the real thing that shows
Episode Closure and Future Content
00:43:43
Speaker
through in most um AI-produced content.
00:43:47
Speaker
just Yes, and I mean I see that with students who want to use LLMs to generate essays. The thing about philosophy is we expect people to stake a position. The thing about LLM content at this stage, and I'm aware this is a moving target here, because LLMs, and I hate to say this because I'm putting in quote marks, seem to be getting better, although there's also a big question as to whether they've hit a brick wall now with respect to their being able to get any better than they are.
00:44:17
Speaker
But LLMs are very bad at doing philosophy, because they kind of do up both sides. Let's be nuanced about this, as opposed to going, look, this position is superior to that position, and here's why. An LLM will go, well, some people think this position is good, and some people will think that position is good, which is a view that first-year students often want to engage in. And philosophers try to train them out of. No, tell me what you think. Which position do you agree with?
00:44:47
Speaker
Why do you agree with it? Why is the other position not as good? And that podcast was a great case of going, well, some people think that conspiracy theories can be true, but then automatically lapsing into, but of course they're also bad. There was a ambivalence there, which means it's bad philosophy, which is kind of ironic given it's based upon a corpus of philosophical texts.
00:45:13
Speaker
And to give credit to Brian, I would say good philosophy. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Oh, no, no. Nothing. There's nothing wrong about the input. No. There's a lot wrong about the output. Yes. Right. So I think that'll do for now. um But we we we we're going to end this episode, but we have more recording to do. We've got a bonus episode, which we'll do. We're going to have a bit of a bit of a roundup of... I was going to say a roundup of the year, but it's not. It's a roundup of the last two weeks, really. It's just that a whole lot is seems to have happened of significance.
00:45:47
Speaker
um at the very end of 2024 and then we're going to go and record another episode because I don't know because because I'm going to be on holiday at some point you're coming back here to New Zealand at some point recording is going to be a little bit iffy but if we do another another short end of year episode right now then we'll have another episode to give to you in a week's time or something and it all works out motherlessly yeah and that means the bonus ip episodes are going to be slightly weird and that probably the bonus episode we're going to record now will actually be the bonus episode for the the last two week summary because it would make more sense to have the bonus episode for this week be Brian talking about the LL, LLM stuff, which means the bonus episode might already be out of date by the time it goes live. That's the kind of living on the that we AIs and the podcasters guide to the conspiracy like to engage on
00:46:42
Speaker
Yes, we'll just have to see how things are. So but you will be getting content, just not exactly certain what that content will be and what order it will appear. Yeah. And there might even be more content than that, as people who are listening to the bonus episode are about to find out. Yes. But that's enough. That's enough waffling and disclaimers for now. We're not an LLM, as far as you know.
00:47:03
Speaker
So I think we should just call this particular episode to a close and go and record some other ones. So I'm going to do the traditional signing off of saying goodbye.
00:47:14
Speaker
session terminated the podcasters guide to the conspiracy styles josh addison and myself Associate Professor, M.R.X. Denton. Our show's cons... sorry, producers are Tom and Philip, plus another mysterious anonymous donor. You can contact Josh and myself at podcastconspiracyatgmail.com and please do consider joining our Patreon.
00:47:55
Speaker
And remember, Soylent Green is Meeples.