[HN Gopher] Show HN: Factiverse AI editor - Fact-checking text m...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Factiverse AI editor - Fact-checking text made smarter and
simpler
Heya HN, after 7 years of dedicated work, we're thrilled to unveil
Factiverse AI Editor - a revolutionary tool to validate or debunk
factual claims in any text, including AI-generated content. Here's
how it works: Our cutting-edge machine learning models analyze your
text and identify check-worthy claims. We then scour search engines
like Google, Bing, and Wikipedia, alongside manual fact-checks, to
retrieve supporting and disputing evidence. The credibility of each
source is carefully assessed using another machine learning model
trained on expert fact-checks. Try out the Factiverse AI Editor at
https://editor.factiverse.ai/ and be sure to sign up and provide
feedback on our Product Hunt page at
https://www.producthunt.com/posts/factiverse-ai-editor or directly
within the app. To get started, check out our tutorial video at
https://youtu.be/rMBHHfn6mk0 and hear a special message from the
founders at https://youtu.be/Ri5rR_clpxg. Visit our homepage at
http://factiverse.ai for more information. Join us in
revolutionizing fact-checking with AI!
Author : vinni2
Score : 27 points
Date : 2023-06-23 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (editor.factiverse.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (editor.factiverse.ai)
| ncr100 wrote:
| Positive feedback:
|
| * Yes, more of this kind of technology, yes please. Actual trust
| is different from digital trust, and this tech moves digital
| trustworthiness closer to Actual. This is Human-centered
| technology, IMO.
|
| Critical feedback:
|
| * [minor] Red/Green colors for people with Deuteranopia MIGHT be
| indistinguishable: https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-
| blindness-simul...
| https://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/color-blindness/re... I
| know the factiverse Editor Results website is NOT the primary
| product, and I have "full-color" vision, but hey whenever I see
| Red and Green used for critical data, I criticize!
|
| Idea:
|
| * Build this into an assistant, an always-listening device, as a
| lie-detector, for use in conversations, or for video streaming
| services as a "truth track". Could be entertaining. I watch a lot
| of MSNBC and I want to know what is BS.
| elemos wrote:
| Why is it an editor? Often times I want to fact check other
| things, not my own writing.
| abeppu wrote:
| Or rather, if you're actually writing, you probably already
| have sources in mind. Some people probably are willing to write
| stuff before they know whether it's true or false
| (astrologists, fiction authors), but who among those writers
| cares to fact check whatever they just put down?
| vinni2 wrote:
| OP here, it is an editor because our first market segment is
| content creators. A browser plugin is on the way!
| CharlesW wrote:
| IMHO the pricing model isn't quite right -- you could charge
| professional/enterprise users a lot more, but you're too
| expensive for filthy casuals like me. If there was a tier in the
| $20-30 paid yearly range with reasonable limits for people who
| might use it a handful of times per week, I'd be very interested.
| vinni2 wrote:
| OP here, that's great feedback. We are still tinkering the
| pricing model.
| ldehaan wrote:
| [dead]
| abeppu wrote:
| I found it annoying to be led through a multi-step tutorial modal
| that includes an "Add your own text" pane, but of course when you
| try to change the text away from an off-the-shelf example it nags
| you to sign up. The 3-preloaded examples aren't great, but I have
| to expect that you chose examples to demo on which the system
| works well (and for which there's a cached response) ... but I'm
| not going to make an account to see how well it does (or how long
| it takes) on an arbitrary new article.
| gojomo wrote:
| While there are many, many reasons to worry about a flood of fake
| & false autogenerated AI content, in media & forums not yet
| armored against the new reality, I am _also_ hopeful that various
| kinds of LLM writing-prostheses can _help_ in places that do
| adapt.
|
| This seems like a good example, automating what a speedy &
| diligent stickler-for-what's-supportable could discover, &
| recommend, about drafts from users (or other AI-writers).
|
| Other opportunities might include drafting for clarity, & against
| common misreadings. Might services like Twitter improve if a
| _user-loyal_ & _advisory-not-censoring_ writing coach was there
| to warn when your wording might be misunderstood? When your reply
| might 've assumed-the-worst about the root message whose actual
| or likely intent was more agreeable to you?
|
| Sympathetic reading & sympathetic reading can be hard for those
| under various online stresses, or having just been fed a heavily-
| spun/decontextualized narrative, or just learning a new space's
| realities. It's _possible_ specialized AIs could help improve
| online conversations, if deployed and tuned by those seeking
| understanding rather than division.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Yea, it's probably true that as much as LLMs could flood us
| with bullshit, they might also give us the tools to deal with
| the floods.
|
| It's just that it's much easier to generate floods of bullshit,
| especially in the beginning _(where we are)_.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| Overall, this is pretty cool. Good Job.
|
| One issue I have with it, though...
|
| It would be nice if I could filter what count's as a valid
| "source".
|
| Meaning, having the BBC or The Guardian as a supporting source
| doesn't really make me feel much better.
|
| Just a thought, but good stuff overall.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| I just tried and I had the same thought.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Did you try it? Each claim results in Supporting, Mixed, and
| Disputing citations. You decide what it means if _[Media Source
| You Hate]_ supports or disputes a claim.
| JimtheCoder wrote:
| Yes, I did try it...that's how I found out that sites like
| BBC or The Guardian are used as sources.
|
| All I am saying is that it would be nice to have the ability
| to choose categories of "sources" so I don't have to sort
| through a ton of clutter.
|
| Using the El Nino example that was auto filled, a large
| portion of the sources look like they come from sites that
| more than likely will be using things like ChatGPT to
| generate their content in the near future, thus negating any
| real benefit...
| CharlesW wrote:
| Ah, I see. For me, it's just as helpful to know whether
| _[Media Source I Hate]_ supports or disputes a claim as it
| is whether _[Trusted Media Source]_ supports or disputes a
| claim. I 'm generally always curious about the spin,
| especially when I know it's not objective.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >alongside manual fact-checks,
|
| what does this entail, or is it exactly what i think it means?
| does it list the names and credentials of those manual biobots?
| deoxykev wrote:
| I would love an API, and more flexible pricing options. A
| subscription just won't work for my use case, which would be just
| once in a while for a hobby chatbot.
| vinni2 wrote:
| We do have APIs https://search.factiverse.no/v1/redoc
| miahwilde wrote:
| What is a fact - fundamentally?
| CharlesW wrote:
| Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
| masswerk wrote:
| An observation in the context of a specific frame of reference
| (and only in this context). As a frame of reference is mostly a
| social construct (or an idea anyways), it mostly relies on
| social consensus, which is both fundamental but also limited to
| the particular frame of reference.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-23 23:02 UTC)