So starting off on the philosophical level for anyone with a similar question: we do not have direct access to truth. We just don’t live in a universe that works that way. There’s not some magical formula we’re ever going to find like “Count he number of J’s in this sentence, divide it by seventeen, and project it on the imaginary number line and then if you have an even number it’s true.”
The reason this would create coherence is that it would 1) create a feedback mechanism for how correct you are that is impartially enforced. Not perfectly enforced, of course, but nothing is ever perfect and we have appeals to try to care for that as much as possible 2) tie the reward for accurate/helpful public speaking to attention. This is voluntary to view but involuntary to participate in. If you have something in your browser on your phone or desktop that interjects every time you read a news article, similar to how Community Notes works on Twitter, after you feel you trust it enough you can just turn off the garbage. No more clickbait. No more articles that are there just to get a rise out of you. There’s other things you could do to make that the desired setting for people. 3) create markets for people to go out and discover what is true. If you have this tied to a bounty system based on confidence you can do things like say “Well, we are so confident of this now because of the number of other pieces linking to this and how many times it has been viewed, or been disputed unsuccessfully, that we will offer $1,000,000 for a correction.” If you have a number like that no one can win that gives people confidence in the material. You do have to have some kind of stake for the person doing the dispute because it can’t be a free for all but it immediately economizes people’s opinions. You can also do things like go out and create bounties for great reporting on things that are still unresolved. I’d like to see a $10,000,000 bounty for who killed Epstein. People could create that kind of feature, vote on it, and apportion money from a general pool for new reporting for that kind of thing. That way things that unreported but important would have a funding mechanism.
Yep of course there are questions that would have to be tossed for being matters of taste.
As said above, nothing is “the truth” but the truth and we don’t have direct access to it. We just try to approach. This is an approach.
Yes the money clawback would happen. Basically some interval of time has to pass before payout. My preference would be about six months. Company could make money on arbitrage.
Gently said, but I think you may not have read some of the other pieces where I directly answer these questions. That’s fine. There’s a lot of rules to be written I don’t have a lot of time to write down. Here is the last explainer I wrote up.
So starting off on the philosophical level for anyone with a similar question: we do not have direct access to truth. We just don’t live in a universe that works that way. There’s not some magical formula we’re ever going to find like “Count he number of J’s in this sentence, divide it by seventeen, and project it on the imaginary number line and then if you have an even number it’s true.”
The reason this would create coherence is that it would 1) create a feedback mechanism for how correct you are that is impartially enforced. Not perfectly enforced, of course, but nothing is ever perfect and we have appeals to try to care for that as much as possible 2) tie the reward for accurate/helpful public speaking to attention. This is voluntary to view but involuntary to participate in. If you have something in your browser on your phone or desktop that interjects every time you read a news article, similar to how Community Notes works on Twitter, after you feel you trust it enough you can just turn off the garbage. No more clickbait. No more articles that are there just to get a rise out of you. There’s other things you could do to make that the desired setting for people. 3) create markets for people to go out and discover what is true. If you have this tied to a bounty system based on confidence you can do things like say “Well, we are so confident of this now because of the number of other pieces linking to this and how many times it has been viewed, or been disputed unsuccessfully, that we will offer $1,000,000 for a correction.” If you have a number like that no one can win that gives people confidence in the material. You do have to have some kind of stake for the person doing the dispute because it can’t be a free for all but it immediately economizes people’s opinions. You can also do things like go out and create bounties for great reporting on things that are still unresolved. I’d like to see a $10,000,000 bounty for who killed Epstein. People could create that kind of feature, vote on it, and apportion money from a general pool for new reporting for that kind of thing. That way things that unreported but important would have a funding mechanism.
Yep of course there are questions that would have to be tossed for being matters of taste.
As said above, nothing is “the truth” but the truth and we don’t have direct access to it. We just try to approach. This is an approach.
Yes the money clawback would happen. Basically some interval of time has to pass before payout. My preference would be about six months. Company could make money on arbitrage.
Gently said, but I think you may not have read some of the other pieces where I directly answer these questions. That’s fine. There’s a lot of rules to be written I don’t have a lot of time to write down. Here is the last explainer I wrote up.
https://extelligence.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-the-news