Activity
#5537·Dennis HackethalOP, about 17 hours agoI don't think either program solves those problems, and I don't think it needs to. That's the part people do.
I think Veritula solves it because it has a recursive notion of criticism. It doesn’t ‘solve’ it in the sense that it completely takes all burden off humans – creative input is still required – but it solves it in the sense that new input can be given at runtime that changes the displayed (tentative) result.
In any case, although the blog post suggests Veritula as a working alternative to HTV, the bounty isn’t a competition between HTV and Veritula. It’s about rehabilitating HTV in its own right. That may require addressing flaws even if Veritula has them, too.
I agree that HTV has to stand on its own. My argument isn't “Veritula has this problem too, therefore it's okay for HTV to have it.”
The reason I've been comparing the two is narrower: to show that outsourcing the parts requiring creativity and judgment to the user doesn't prevent us from having an executable decision procedure built on top of those inputs.
On revisability specifically, I agree that the result should be tentative and able to change when the user's judgments change. As I explained in #5559, this can technically already be done by rerunning the program with the updated inputs. The current CLI is only a minimal demonstration, so that's obviously not ideal UX. Letting the user add, edit, or delete variations and immediately recalculate the result would be straightforward and wouldn't change the decision procedure.