h a l f b a k e r y
Why did I think of that?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
AI / Stock / Debate
Combine prediction markets, collective intelligence, artificial intelligence and online debat
I think a website that organizes reasons to agree and
disagree with an idea into separate columns, and
promotes the best ideas to the top of each column, could
eventually attain a sort of artificial intelligence. I would
make an algorithm that promotes the best ideas by
evaluating the following
aspects of an idea:
Quantity of reasons that agree or disagree with the idea:
The side with more reasons (to agree or disagree) would
get more points than the other side. For example this
idea has more reasons to agree than disagree. Just like
when you fill out a list of reasons to or not to do certain
activities, you tend to choose the side with more
reasons to agree.
Number of people who agree or disagree with the idea:
The side with more people who agree should get more
points. People could vote for or against ideas.
The website with better web links. Better is determined
by Google rank. There would be a field where you could
enter link that "agree" or "disagree" with the idea. The
side with better web links would win. Example
Results of peer evaluations: Their would be forms that
people would fill out that asked pointed questions about
each idea. You could respond to each question on a scale
from 1 to 10. These results would affect the total score
for each idea.
Money. "Follow the money." People could donate money
to this website if they believe in it. But a better way of
doing it would be to let people donate money towards a
specific idea. If you don't like the way this sounds you
should read Atlas Shrugged by Ian Rand. I'll just briefly
say that money is the only way of measuring someone's
blood, sweat, and tears. Money is the only way that
someone can pay someone else for their work. Also, it
could be used on this website as tug of war analogue.
Money could be donated to each side of an idea.
Experts. Each idea would get more points if it was
submitted from the e-mail address of a professor with a
degree in the subject mater that is being discussed. For
instance if someone said that Abraham Lincoln was an
idiot. And someone disagreed, and someone else
agreed. If the person that disagreed had a degree in
history and the idea was submitted to the history
section, then the person who disagreed (the professor)
would win. The more prestigious the school, the more
points. Prestigious would be ranked by the US News
report, or some other un-biased judge. I don't care about
you people that say, "The smartest people don't always
make the best decisions." We are talking about
percentages. Of course the smartest people don't always
make the best decisions, but they would tend to make
better decisions that stupid or uneducated people.
Items that agree. People would be able to submit books
that they think are important to read to make an
educated decision about a certain topic. For instance
"The communist manifesto" by Carl Marx and "Atlas
Shrugged" by Ian Rand may be considered to be the most
important books to read regarding weather or not we
should raise taxes. Those that had read those books,
should have more say on this idea than those who have
not, because this website desided that those books are
very important to understand to make a decision about
this issue. But the algorithm could go deeper. We are
only just beginning to enter the rabit hole. We could let
people who have read these books submit essays on
them (like book reports in school). The people with a
higher "grade" on their essays would get more say in
those issues that people have said that those books are
The goal of the algorithm is to put the best ideas to the
top. I don't know which one of these would carry more
weight. For instance should experts or web links carry
I think it would be cool if each user could say which
things they want to pay attention to. That way if one
user respects authorizes, like people with degrees.
Eventually this will evolve into a form of artificial
intelligence, which we will call 'Collective Intelligence.'
People will then be able to say that they have mapped
out all possible reasons for agreeing with, or disagreeing
with every moral, political, and economic decision. Then
when all of these reasons are mapped out, society will
get to the work of evaluating the validity of each view.
These validities will be traded on a stock market much
like the DJI, were if you buy an opinion for cheep
(unpopular) and it gains in popularity, then you will be
able to sell it at a profit.
The only way that AI will truly work to benefit mankind is
when its developers combine the advantages of humans
First let me say explain my concept of a web page that I
believe would obtain this merge of the benefits of
mankind and computers.
We build this by building a debate forum called the Battle
Field of Ideas. You then create a database that manages
ideas and reasons for believing them. You then create an
algorithm that will allow these ideas fight for survival.
Survival of the fittest is what led to the first organic
intelligence, and I believe it is what will lead to the first
You could say that Google already has AI, it just needs to
be presented to the public. For instance the internet
would have voted for one of the presidents. I don't know
which one, but it could be easy to determine which one it
would have voted for.
Just do a Google search for George Bush is an Idiot, and
all of the websites that say John Kerry is an idiot, and
see which ones come back with the highest ranks.
You may not say that the internet is always smart, or
makes the best decisions, but you could say that it has a
preference for one man over the other.
Also synonyms for "stupid" should be used. Of course you
wouldn't have to use negative, but you could, for each
statement, see which person would win. For instance,
Google "Is a good person" for two candidates...
Does this get anyone else excited?
TouchGraph Google Browser
An interesting way to browse Google... [zen_tom, Mar 11 2005]
Browse through music or books to see what you might like based on what you know you already like. [zen_tom, Mar 11 2005]
||The relevant comments I made on the other idea still
apply. Some advice: you should leave out the detail
you've already gone through in the other idea, and simply
reference it in this one. It would (IMO) make this idea
much more readable and independent.
||(personal opinion) Write as if your reader had a 10 second attention span.
||Sounds a bit like this site in some ways, though I must admit I went into 'skim' mode after reading the sentence: //The website with better web links.//. It's a bit confused but there's something in there.
1. Two column format.
2. Your new algorithm that promotes annotations.
3. Site search and recognition management software.
||Interesting point of view:
Natural selection led to intelligence.
A broadly implemented, comparative ranking of multifarious and disparate ideas will lead to equal parts idea advancement and idea betterment.
||The Halfbakery site design lacks some of the refined annotation and opinion handling that are suggested, [myclob], but the beauty of this site is that ideas here can be silently voted into the stratosphere without 'idea necromancy' (pulling old ideas out of the cellar and putting them on the front page without adding substance to a very long idled annotation thread). That benefit of this site's idea management algorithm seems to me a bit of AI in and of itself.
||I agree with everything here.
||Eventually this kind of a system should get away from
language and into emotions as evidenced by patterns in
visual and auditory biofeedback displays.
||People should choose by playing video games, not by using
||Maybe Google is already an artificial intelligence. To
speed it up we need a real time Dow Jones-like display of
the popularity and contextual relationships of individual
||I wonder if Google is holding an advanced interface like
that back from the public. It would certainly be a better
stethiscope of our collective trust than the stock market.
||You are right. You could say that Google already has AI, it just needs to be presented to the public. For instance the internet would have voted for one of the presidents. I don't know which one, but it could be easy to determine which one. Do a Google search for George Bush is an Idiot, and all of the websites that say John Kerry is an idiot, and see which ones come back with the highest rank. You couldn't say the internet is always smart, but you could say that it has a preference for one man over the other. Also synonyms for stupid should be used. Of course you wouldn't have to use negative, but you could, for each statement, see which person would win. For instance, Google "Is a good person" for two candidates... Does this get anyone else excited?
||//Does this get anyone else excited?//
[myclob] sorry to put a downer on things, but no, not me. Google is a big stack of servers that indexes groups of unicode bytes into alphabetical order before linking them with urls that contain matching strings of unicode bytes. It's really not about to start voting for anyone.
||It's a far cry from associating a lot of similar data to actually having any understanding of what any of it means. Yes, if you type in clever searches, you can get meaningful and surprising results - but that's you being clever, using a complex analysis tool. But it's certainly not an example of you interacting with an intelligent machine.
||I've added a couple of links - Googleduel, which rates the googlerank of one entry over another (Kerry/Bush, Brown/Blair) etc and a link to the TouchGraph Google Browser page - this is a really great way to explore Google, and to see how various concepts are related to one another - it's best when you use a website as a starting point - I tried it with www.halfbakery.com and found the results quite interesting!
||There's also a link to Gnod, a site that uses a kind of voting algorythm to link associated topics - you can use it to reccommend books or music based on authors or songwriters you know you already like.
||People should choose by playing video games, not by using words?
||[myclob], I tested your suggestion.
||[george bush is an idiot] 3,910 hits
||[john kerry is an idiot] 103 hits
||How are we going to factor in the Googlectoral college?
||Can you also factor in the hits that say eg "Anyone who thinks that John Kerry is an idiot has obviously not studied him"?
||normzone: after your anno, the # hits should go up by one for each. See how valid this is?
||This idea suffers from the premise that truth can be arrived at democratically. This lenghthily describes an algorithm to assess what's commonly believed vs. controversial, and we don't need no fancy algorithm to tell us that.
||It also suffers from the idea that a Google search would result in a 1:1 correlation with the opinion of the general public. The internet is still largely a haven for those who like to hang out there.
||sophocles, I do not believe that "truth can be arrived at democratically." I do not think this is a truth promoting or finding website. It can only represent our colective (and current) belief or understanding of truth. That is why I call it collective intellegence, instead of AI or a truth finder.
||It would have to be more sophisticated than just the number of websites that say that george bush is stupid. It would have to be more like the percentage of websites, because their are naturally more websites about George Bush (a 2nd term president who started 2 wars) than John (who?) Kerry.