Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
It might be better to just get another gerbil.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                   

AI / Stock / Debate

Combine prediction markets, collective intelligence, artificial intelligence and online debat
  (+4, -9)(+4, -9)
(+4, -9)
  [vote for,
against]

A website that promotes the best pro/con sub-argument could attain a sort of artificial intelligence.

AI would most likely grow from pro/con algorithms the way we evolved from slim.

A key component of consciousness and intelligence is the ability to make decisions.

Intelligence has been defined as "the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving." These skills are all tools in the service of weighing the pros and cons to make better decisions.

There is no way for artificial intelligence to make decisions without a pro/con evaluation algorithm.

Machine learning is built on the strategy of trying new things but focus on what has worked before. Said more simply, it is the belief that we should repeat successful strategies. To define success, we must weigh costs and benefits.

Intelligence, artificial or biological, can only be found in weighing the validity (truth) and impact (cost, benefit, risk) of pros AND cons.

Intelligence is promoted by deliberate efforts to remove bias and emotion, like pro/con cost/benefit analysis.

The scientific process, reason, order, and truth all require processes that remove emotion, bias, anecdote, and stories.

Intelligence is tying the strength of your conventions to the force of evidence. Evidence can either be a pro or a con, and it can have a more significant or smaller impact.

Intelligence is promoted by careful thinking that examines both sides dispassionately and systematically. There are many ways to structure pro/con and cost/benefit lists that encourage dispassionately and systematic analysis.

If we could evaluate the strength of sub-arguments, we could define "better beliefs" as those with more "good" pros and fewer "good" cons. We can evaluate the strength of sub-arguments.

Better arguments would perform better in a survival of the fittest deathmatch. We can make an argument survival of the fittest deathmatch.

There are hundreds of ways of promoting better arguments.

We can and should count and contrast the number of upvotes vs. downvotes. Upvotes are easy and fast for forum users to use and for us to score.

Ranking something generally provides higher resolution than simple upvotes, but takes more effort.

We could rank specific dimensions of an argument. For example, if the reasoning supports the conclusion, it is logically sound, or redundant.

We could design a forum that helps the users tag the argument as a specific logical fallacy. We could even help users select which part of an argument fits particular elements of a logical fallacy.

We should separate arguments about a link's truth from arguments that somethings truth supports or weakens another belief. These arguments should be separated from arguments about how important something is, separate from its truth or relevance.

If we separate these arguments, we can use the performance of each type of argument to generate separate useful scores.

An argument should have a truth score that is based on how well something can be verified.

Arguments need importance scores because not everything true and relevant is equally as important.

Arguments need linkage scores, to identify how much of its truth and importance scores should be transferred to each conclusion that tries to use that "truth" as evidence.

Not everything true is relevant.

It may be proven to be true that cows fart. However, this fact should not be used as a reason to go to war with Iran. Even if we assume it is true that cows fart, that fact will not strengthen the belief that war with Iran is a good policy.

Just because global warming is real, doesn't mean that we should do everything claimed to reduce global warming, no matter the cost.

The fact of man-caused global warming should be used to support policies that most efficiently address climate change.

We could count arguments similar to how google counts links.

The website with better web links. Better is determined by Google rank. There would be a field where you could enter links that "agree" or "disagree" with the idea. The side with better web links would win. Example Results of peer evaluations: There would be forms that people would fill out that asked pointed questions about each idea. You could respond to each item 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 important.

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 more weight?

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 and computers.

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 artificial intelligence.

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?

myclob, Mar 07 2005

TouchGraph Google Browser http://www.touchgra...GGoogleBrowser.html
An interesting way to browse Google... [zen_tom, Mar 11 2005]

Gnod http://www.gnod.net
Browse through music or books to see what you might like based on what you know you already like. [zen_tom, Mar 11 2005]

[link]






       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.
Detly, Mar 07 2005
  

       (personal opinion) Write as if your reader had a 10 second attention span.
david_scothern, Mar 07 2005
  

       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.
wagster, Mar 07 2005
  

       Good points:
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.
  

       Brazen presumption:
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.
reensure, Mar 07 2005
  

       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 words.   

       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 words.   

       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.
JesusHChrist, Mar 11 2005
  

       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?
myclob, Mar 11 2005
  

       //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.
zen_tom, Mar 11 2005
  

       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.
zen_tom, Mar 11 2005
  

       People should choose by playing video games, not by using words?
yabba do yabba dabba, Mar 11 2005
  

       [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?
normzone, Mar 11 2005
  

       Can you also factor in the hits that say eg "Anyone who thinks that John Kerry is an idiot has obviously not studied him"?
angel, Mar 11 2005
  

       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.
sophocles, Mar 11 2005
  

       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.
RayfordSteele, Mar 11 2005
  

       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.
myclob, Mar 11 2005
  

       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.
myclob, Mar 17 2006
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle