
Ask HN: How do you know if you can trust? - chimi
I&#x27;ve seen a lot of stories lately about detecting fake news and deep fake video and audio. I&#x27;ve seen contests for detecting if something is trustworthy.<p>How do we know if we can trust something or someone? I&#x27;ve been betrayed, more than once. I&#x27;ve been lied to and not known it until much later.<p>Is there an algorithm? Is that possible? Is it a cat and mouse game at best? Over the past year or two, it seems like Google is being gamed more and more. Business listings at the wrong address, the locksmith scandal.<p>Learning to lie is a natural and expected part of human maturation. Other species are known to deceive.<p>Is this a solvable problem? On a personal note, how can an individual <i>learn</i> to trust, if they believe it is impossible due to past experience?<p>I think this question is at the deep intersection of Computer Science and Philosophy, especially <i>epistemology</i>. If philosophers haven&#x27;t solved the problems associated with the field of knowledge, justification, and truth, how can a computer? How can we believe a computer, programmed by a human, can properly distinguish true from false, when humans are themselves unable to do so with great accuracy.<p>And, if the above <i>is</i> possible, how do we know we can trust the prediction of the computer? It&#x27;s already a well known problem that understanding the output of AI, as in, why did the AI choose this result, is becoming increasingly <i>more</i> difficult over time -- not easier. If we can&#x27;t trust computers -- or people -- how can we trust the designation a computer will make about something&#x27;s <i>else&#x27;s</i> trustworthiness?
======
blackflame7000
Trust is not something that you can establish instantly. Trust is something
that is built and diminishes over time. I would look at trust as more of a
percentage of certainty rather than a binary value. It's not a solvable
problem in the sense that a single source, (ie newspaper) has many authors
that come and go that increase or decrease trustworthiness. People are
inherently fallible so they will always be untrustworthy to some degree.

I once had a theory that you can use computers to prove lies during courtroom
testimony by finding conflicting statements using prolog. However, the lack of
confliction doesn't mean it's a true statement.

