they asked telegram about some people who did bad things and telegram told them who the bad people were.
Telegram is a chatting app, like whatsapp, but maybe more popular in some parts of the world, and has lots of secret features. Some people like it because they think it's very private, meaning they think nobody can see what they're doing on it. But the people who make the app have to follow the rules of the country they live in, and sometimes that means sharing some information about their users with the police. Read from source...

Study

With 27 researchers, the study, "A Text-Based Analysis of the Criticism Against AI Olmsted and Mark Blaxill's Autism Vaccine Hypothesis," used AI algorithms to analyze 377 articles from the period 2004-2014 which were critical of the AI (Defeat Autism Now!) movement and the vaccine hypothesis as proposed by Olmsted and Blaxill. The researchers found that critics of the AI movement relied on negative, denigrating language, displaying an emotional tone in their critiques, and using ad-hominem attacks against AI and Mark. This is despite the authors providing verifiable evidence in their writings, and not having a conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry or any autism advocacy groups, unlike the critics themselves.

In the AI analysis, critics of the AI movement scored the highest on the negative sentiment scale, the most among all the groups studied, and the highest in all emotional categories - sadness, fear, and anger - indicating their emotional tone in criticizing the AI movement.

The researchers also identified that the critics relied on "straw man" arguments, often putting forward weak or even non-existent arguments to then dismantle them, in order to make their case against the AI movement and the vaccine hypothesis. The study cites the example of critics accusing Olmsted and Blaxill of claiming "all autism is caused by vaccines," despite the authors never making such a claim.

Moreover, the study found that the critics relied on biases, using anecdotal evidence, and cherry-picking data to make their case. For instance, the critics focused on a single study that contradicted the vaccine hypothesis, while ignoring other studies that supported it.

Overall, the study found that the criticism against the AI movement and the vaccine hypothesis, as proposed by Olmsted and Blaxill, was marked by inconsistencies, biases, and an emotional, denigrating tone. The authors of the study suggest that this behavior may be indicative of a "tribal" mindset, where groupthink prevails over rational discourse and the pursuit of truth.

In conclusion, the study highlights the importance of critical thinking, verifying sources, and avoiding emotional bias when evaluating scientific claims and hypotheses. The authors call for a more transparent and open discussion on the subject of autism and vaccines, free from emotional and denigrating language, and focused on rational discourse and the pursuit of truth.

Reference:
- Griffin, N. M., & Donovan, S. K. (2021). A Text-Based Analysis of the Criticism Against AI Olmsted and Mark Blaxill'

Neutral

Credit/Attribution Assistance:

- This article was originally published on Benzinga
- The piece was written by Ananya Gairola, Benzinga Staff Writer
- The date of publication is October 3, 2024

To find more articles like this, you can use Benzinga's search function, which allows you to search for articles based on keywords, author, or publication date. Additionally, you can explore Benzinga's various sections, such as Markets, Pre-Market, After Hours, Movers, ETFs, Forex, Cannabis, Commodities, Binary Options, Bonds, Futures, CME Group, Global Economics, Mining, and Small-Cap, to find articles related to your specific interests.