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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
We could count arguments similar to how google counts
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
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.
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
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
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
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?