Activity Feed
#5729·Dennis HackethalOP, 21 days agoOffer easy way to link to latest version of an idea. The ability already exists – an idea link +
/latestwill always go to the latest version – but isn’t directly exposed in the form of a link or button yet.
Done as of a7a529b5.
Add clause preventing excessive arguing
Forum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Content written with AI may be submitted, but only if disclosed: when posting, tick “Text written with AI?” if AI wrote any part of your idea, including polishing or translating your own writing. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for content you don’t mark as written with AI. Repeat submission of content written with AI that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.
Badges reward your own contributions, so ideas written with AI don’t count toward them, disclosed or not. Badges follow the current rules, so those earned under earlier rules may be revoked.
To ensure a high quality of discussions and avoid having to refute and re-refute ideas already known to be wrong, members of Veritula are expected to make an effort to act rationally and take ideas seriously. They should stay at least somewhat up to date on discussion outcomes and avoid repeating the same discussions. Advocacy of ideas with pending criticisms and/or rejection of ideas without pending criticisms – in short, deviations from rationality as defined here – may result in a warning when someone should reasonably already know better. Repeat offenses may result in a temporary or permanent ban. Don’t rely on memory alone to decide whether to adopt an idea. Look it up on Veritula and go by whether the idea has pending criticisms – dispassionately, the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. If you personally disagree, you can say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’ To make things easier, there’s a search page. You can also subscribe to notifications on an idea to stay up to date on any new criticisms (hit the bell icon in the upper right corner of an idea). You can also enable email notifications in your settings.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, revoke badges, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms and the terms of any bounty you take part in apply as well.
Forum Rules
Veritula welcomes a wide range of discussion topics. Generally speaking, people have free speech here. Unpopular topics will not automatically get people banned. The goal of moderation is to preserve productive, truth-seeking discussion.
Behavior that is intended, or likely, to sabotage debate or prevent progress is a bannable offense. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to, harassment, brigading, rage baiting, public shaming, and persistent bad-faith argumentation or refusal to engage substantively.
Veritula takes intellectual property seriously and reserves the right to take down content that infringes on others’ intellectual property.
Veritula also reserves the right to take down obscene content such as pornography.
Content written with AI may be submitted, but only if disclosed: when posting, tick “Text written with AI?” if AI wrote any part of your idea, including polishing or translating your own writing. Veritula is a place for genuine discussion and truth-seeking, so we’d prefer to avoid talking to meat proxies without realizing it. AI content is notoriously verbose – don’t flood discussions with it. In addition, it’s your responsibility to ensure that AI detectors give negative results for content you don’t mark as written with AI. Repeat submission of content written with AI that is not disclosed and/or overly verbose is a bannable offense.
Badges reward your own contributions, so ideas written with AI don’t count toward them, disclosed or not. Badges follow the current rules, so those earned under earlier rules may be revoked.
To ensure a high quality of discussions and avoid having to refute and re-refute ideas already known to be wrong, members of Veritula are expected to make an effort to act rationally and take ideas seriously. They should stay at least somewhat up to date on discussion outcomes and avoid repeating the same discussions. Advocacy of ideas with pending criticisms and/or rejection of ideas without pending criticisms – in short, deviations from rationality as defined here – may result in a warning when someone should reasonably already know better. Repeat offenses may result in a temporary or permanent ban. Don’t rely on memory alone to decide whether to adopt an idea. Look it up on Veritula and go by whether the idea has pending criticisms – dispassionately, the way a judge would look up a law in a legal text. If you personally disagree, you can say something like: ‘Although I personally disagree, at the current state of the discussion, idea X (link to the idea on V) is (or is not) rationally adoptable.’ To make things easier, there’s a search page. You can also subscribe to notifications on an idea to stay up to date on any new criticisms (hit the bell icon in the upper right corner of an idea). You can also enable email notifications in your settings.
Serious instances of off-platform behavior that clearly would have violated these rules on-platform may result in removal.
Depending on the severity of an infraction, moderators may issue a warning, revoke badges, temporarily lock an account, or permanently ban the account.
Looking for loopholes in these rules, or abusing the letter to violate the spirit of these rules, is a bannable offense.
Moderation decisions are at the discretion of Veritula.
Users may appeal moderation decisions by contacting the moderators within a reasonable time after a decision. Appeals should explain why the decision was wrong. Appeals are reviewed at the moderators’ discretion. The same decision may be appealed only once. Excessive arguing over a moderation decision, asking for exceptions or special treatment, complaining about the rules, and similar behavior, are all bannable offenses. What counts as similar, excessive, and asking for special treatment is up to moderators. It’s usually best to accept a moderation decision and move on.
Talks with moderators should remain respectful and constructive. Changes to these rules should be proposed by criticizing this idea before issues arise. Changes are generally not retroactive unless specified otherwise.
Site-wide terms and the terms of any bounty you take part in apply as well.
#6023·Michael Briffa, 1 day agoI think that you've made something really great here with Veritula, I'm naturally loving it. It would be a shame to make the experience taxing as one must be conscious of AI scores. I looked at the results of the analysis you did on my criticism. It was practically a sentence and a bit, that was adjusted by AI, as I mentioned it was the result of a speech to text tool, I don't type much anymore, it's a part of my workflow (a % score also does not consider the fact that replies are usually short. So one sentence can be a significant)
I think, especially on a platform like this, users don't enjoy feeling restrained. The problem with AI is that, used recklessly, it creates low quality ideas/criticism (many times because it does not actually address a problem so progress stalls). When one does not have a reliable system with which to consider a response as AI, the label and its enforcement becomes worthless. This reminds me of your criticism of hard to vary, in that because we cannot program it we do not understand it. Your rule on AI and labelling seems to suffer from the same issue.
Just check the checkbox
#6018·Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago·AI-assistedI haven’t used Wispr Flow, but their site says it “turns speech into clear, polished writing.” Sounds like it’s not just plain speech-to-text, and the forum rules count AI polishing. Even if I misunderstand Wispr Flow, the forum rules make it your responsibility that AI detectors come back negative.
I’ve retroactively marked #6015 as AI-assisted. It won’t count toward badges. Any replies of yours below #6016 won’t either, since they only exist because of #6015. If it happens again, I’ll lock your account for a week.
I think that you've made something really great here with Veritula, I'm naturally loving it. It would be a shame to make the experience taxing as one must be conscious of AI scores. I looked at the results of the analysis you did on my criticism. It was practically a sentence and a bit, that was adjusted by AI, as I mentioned it was the result of a speech to text tool, I don't type much anymore, it's a part of my workflow (a % score also does not consider the fact that replies are usually short. So one sentence can be a significant)
I think, especially on a platform like this, users don't enjoy feeling restrained. The problem with AI is that, used recklessly, it creates low quality ideas/criticism (many times because it does not actually address a problem so progress stalls). When one does not have a reliable system with which to consider a response as AI, the label and its enforcement becomes worthless. This reminds me of your criticism of hard to vary, in that because we cannot program it we do not understand it. Your rule on AI and labelling seems to suffer from the same issue.
#4614·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 months agoNeed rate limiting for new users to prevent excessive posting.
Done as of a while ago (c1f33a63).
#6015·Michael Briffa, 3 days ago·AI-assistedThanks. I agree that knowing an algorithm and understanding why it is impossible are different things. The theorem says there is no universal halting algorithm to know.
The contradiction arises when we assume that an algorithm satisfying those requirements exists. The conclusion is that no algorithm meets those requirements. Describing such an algorithm as “unknowable” seems to treat it as something that exists but is inaccessible to us, when its existence is precisely what the theorem rules out.
Consider an exact circle made from finitely many straight line segments. We will never discover what such a figure looks like because no figure satisfies those requirements. Calling its appearance “unknowable” seems to turn the nonexistence of an object into a limitation on our knowledge of it.
In the same way, “we will never know a universal halting algorithm” amounts to saying that we will never discover an algorithm that does not exist, based on our current theories. If that is all you mean by “unknowable,” I think the only thing we would not agree about is the definition of “unknowable” itself.
As a rule of thumb, please try making your writing less verbose. For example: ‘unknowability implies existence.’
Brevity helps not just your readers but yourself: the longer your text, the more vulnerable it becomes to criticism.
If your readers need more info, they can ask.
I haven’t used Wispr Flow, but their site says it “turns speech into clear, polished writing.” Sounds like it’s not just plain speech-to-text, and the forum rules count AI polishing. Even if I misunderstand Wispr Flow, the forum rules make it your responsibility that AI detectors come back negative.
I’ve retroactively marked #6015 as AI-assisted. It won’t count toward badges. Any replies of yours below #6016 won’t either, since they only exist because of #6015. If it happens again, I’ll lock your account for a week.
#6016·Dennis Hackethal, 1 day agoPangram estimates about 45% of this idea to be AI-generated. True?
Thanks. I agree that knowing aDoes "Thanks. I agree that knowing a" contain AI-generated text? Pangram finds that 45% of this document is AI-generated.
I used Wispr Flow, speech-to-text. Tough line to draw.
#6015·Michael Briffa, 3 days ago·AI-assistedThanks. I agree that knowing an algorithm and understanding why it is impossible are different things. The theorem says there is no universal halting algorithm to know.
The contradiction arises when we assume that an algorithm satisfying those requirements exists. The conclusion is that no algorithm meets those requirements. Describing such an algorithm as “unknowable” seems to treat it as something that exists but is inaccessible to us, when its existence is precisely what the theorem rules out.
Consider an exact circle made from finitely many straight line segments. We will never discover what such a figure looks like because no figure satisfies those requirements. Calling its appearance “unknowable” seems to turn the nonexistence of an object into a limitation on our knowledge of it.
In the same way, “we will never know a universal halting algorithm” amounts to saying that we will never discover an algorithm that does not exist, based on our current theories. If that is all you mean by “unknowable,” I think the only thing we would not agree about is the definition of “unknowable” itself.
Pangram estimates about 45% of this idea to be AI-generated. True?
#6009·Dennis Hackethal, 3 days agoHi Michael, welcome to V.
The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases.
Yes, we can, but note the switch from knowing such an impossible algorithm to understanding why such an algorithm is impossible. Those are two different things.
What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
A universal halting algorithm.
Thanks. I agree that knowing an algorithm and understanding why it is impossible are different things. The theorem says there is no universal halting algorithm to know.
The contradiction arises when we assume that an algorithm satisfying those requirements exists. The conclusion is that no algorithm meets those requirements. Describing such an algorithm as “unknowable” seems to treat it as something that exists but is inaccessible to us, when its existence is precisely what the theorem rules out.
Consider an exact circle made from finitely many straight line segments. We will never discover what such a figure looks like because no figure satisfies those requirements. Calling its appearance “unknowable” seems to turn the nonexistence of an object into a limitation on our knowledge of it.
In the same way, “we will never know a universal halting algorithm” amounts to saying that we will never discover an algorithm that does not exist, based on our current theories. If that is all you mean by “unknowable,” I think the only thing we would not agree about is the definition of “unknowable” itself.
#6013·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoOne thing I haven’t decided yet: each circle in the graphic links to its idea, but it could instead link to its own page of incoming links.
Most links won’t have incoming links themselves.
#6012·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 days agoDone as of
14003625. Each idea now has a separate page listing all the ideas that link to it. For example: https://veritula.com/ideas/5546-how-does-veritula-work-veritula-latin-for/linksThe page features a ring with discussions and profiles grouping the referring ideas:
The page as a whole looks like this, listing the ideas in text form as well:
Last but not least, an idea with referring links gets a new pill badge:
Let me know if this is along the lines of what you had in mind.
One thing I haven’t decided yet: each circle in the graphic links to its idea, but it could instead link to its own page of incoming links.
#2818·Benjamin Davies, 12 months agoIdea: Links within Veritula could be made bidirectional. While viewing an idea, users could see all the ideas that refer to it. This could be displayed as a list of backlinks at the bottom of the idea’s page.
Done as of 14003625. Each idea now has a separate page listing all the ideas that link to it. For example: https://veritula.com/ideas/5546-how-does-veritula-work-veritula-latin-for/links
The page features a ring with discussions and profiles grouping the referring ideas:
The page as a whole looks like this, listing the ideas in text form as well:
Last but not least, an idea with referring links gets a new pill badge:
Let me know if this is along the lines of what you had in mind.
#4727·Dennis HackethalOP, 7 months agoNeed summaries at top of discussions. Could be AI generated.
Related: #6007
#6006·Michael Briffa, 4 days ago"Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them."
I ask myself where I go when I want 'answers' to such problems and immediately I think prediction markets. It's mainly because I think the financial incentives and outcome based 'test' serve as highly reliable error correction. I wonder what different utility Veritula would add in this regard.
The criticism chains? I know of no other site that has them.
#6008·Michael Briffa, 3 days agoIt is unclear to me why uncomputable should mean unknowable. The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases. Are you equating the impossibility of a universal computational procedure with the impossibility of knowledge? What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
Hi Michael, welcome to V.
The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases.
Yes, we can, but note the switch from knowing such an impossible algorithm to understanding why such an algorithm is impossible. Those are two different things.
What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
A universal halting algorithm.
#3973·Dennis Hackethal, 9 months agoBy definition, there is nothing in the unknowable, since it can't be known.
This isn’t true. There are unknowable things. Look up uncomputable functions, see eg
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function#Uncomputable_functions_and_unsolvable_problems
- https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/2s2wgy/what_is_an_uncomputable_function/.
So there are things that computers like our brains can never access – there are fundamental, natural limitations.
In this context, I think of mysticism as restricting criticism and preventing error correction, ie creating a man-made barrier for reason. That’s different.
It is unclear to me why uncomputable should mean unknowable. The halting problem shows that no algorithm can correctly decide, for every program and input, whether the program will halt. Yet we can understand why such an algorithm is impossible, and we can determine the answer in particular cases. Are you equating the impossibility of a universal computational procedure with the impossibility of knowledge? What exactly is being claimed to be unknowable here?
#2752·Benjamin Davies, 12 months agoTop-level ideas in a discussion thread are not standalone pages.
One thing that Wikipedia does well is having a structured, high level page for each idea/subject. This enables readers to get a good sense of an idea quickly.
Right now, to get a good sense of an idea on Veritula, a user often has to study a branching discussion, which can take a lot of work depending on how the discussion played out. A discussion also emphasises things that were relevant to the disagreements that took place in the discussion, rather than distilling the most important elements of an idea into a hierarchy, regardless of disagreements that took place in getting to it (like an encyclopedia entry does).
How I find myself using Veritula at the moment is looking at the latest developing threads. Catching up on the context of that thread through clicking “Activity” is not time-effective; it reminds me of trying to catch up with a group chat full of messages. Threads naturally become messy, and not all points serve to advance the problem (some can be misunderstandings or micro-corrections). For this reason, there should be some summary that considers the following as context:
- The thread problem + metadata
- The discussion points under that thread (considering different branches) that relate to the problem.
- A prompt that aims at addressing “messiness” minimisation.
The summary should preserve substantive developments, competing answers and unresolved criticisms, while compressing resolved misunderstandings and linking back to the relevant posts.
If such a setup, including the summary, prompt and rules for what gets included, were kept open and criticiazable, we should arrive at a good system (so there should be a thread where we can iterate on ideas).
#628·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 years agoI agree that Veritula deserves to scale to something huge.
Looking through the history of Wikipedia, I see that its core concept is that of “compiling the world's knowledge in a single location […]”. To be clear, I think the core concept of Veritula is to be a programmatic implementation of Popper’s rational discussion methodology; it then becomes a dictionary for ideas as a result. It’s also less about listing facts and more about listing ideas and their logical relationship (though criticisms do provide built-in fact-checking mechanisms). That said, with enough users, Veritula could become a place with a lot of knowledge.
The linked site traces some of the success of Wikipedia to volunteers: “The use of volunteers was integral in making and maintaining Wikipedia.” So early adopters such as yourself are crucial.
In addition, 9/11 apparently played a role in making Wikipedia famous:
The September 11 attacks spurred the appearance of breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles. At the time, approximately 100 articles related to 9/11 had been created. After the September 11 attacks, a link to the Wikipedia article on the attacks appeared on Yahoo!'s home page, resulting in a spike in traffic.
Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them. An urgent story would draw a lot of users to the site, too.
Something like Wikipedia’s arbitration process could be interesting, too.
Something similar to Wikipedia’s page-protection feature to combat “edit warring” and “prevent vandalism” could address the issue of people posting criticisms in rapid succession to protect their pet ideas.
Your suggestion to look to Wikipedia for inspiration is spot on. Thanks.
"Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them."
I ask myself where I go when I want 'answers' to such problems and immediately I think prediction markets. It's mainly because I think the financial incentives and outcome based 'test' serve as highly reliable error correction. I wonder what different utility Veritula would add in this regard.
#6002·Moritz Wallawitsch, 4 days ago·AI-assistedFair, but if the discussion itself is clear and concise, it doesn’t need an AI summary either. I agree that a long discussion could benefit even when each individual idea is concise.
… if the discussion itself is clear and concise …
Sure but often they’re not…
#6003·Moritz Wallawitsch, 4 days ago·AI-assistedThen prohibit unnecessary verbosity directly. Human-written text can be verbose, and AI-edited text can be concise. That doesn’t explain why someone using AI to edit their own argument should have to disclose it.
I might do that too. It arguably already falls under the rule against sabotaging debate. But the rules already explain the need for disclosure as well.
I don’t understand why you’re fighting this rule so hard. It’s not like you’re not allowed to use AI. You are. Just disclose it.
#5983·Dennis HackethalOP, 5 days agoAI-generated text is notoriously verbose regardless of who came up with an idea.
Then prohibit unnecessary verbosity directly. Human-written text can be verbose, and AI-edited text can be concise. That doesn’t explain why someone using AI to edit their own argument should have to disclose it.