Search Ideas
4629 ideas match your query.:
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.
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?
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).
"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.
… if the discussion itself is clear and concise …
Sure but often they’re not…
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.
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.
Fair, 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.
I think you defeated my criticism. That’s kind of cool, I get it.
This could extend beyond fixing errors to improving page load times, search quality, and reducing churn, provided you can measure whether a change helped. My friend Samay co-wrote this about a similar loop using production feedback and evals to improve tax agents:
https://openai.com/index/building-self-improving-tax-agents-with-codex/
Kitty Comes Home: my first game made with Claude Opus 5.5.
You play as a little kitten trying to find your way back to your mom.
Play for free here: https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/kitty-comes-home
Teaser trailer: https://youtu.be/bcM2BI-41cY
This takes me back to my startup days in Berlin. It was common knowledge among founders that anyone overly worried about telling people about their great idea because someone might ‘steal’ it was a newbie founder. It’s almost always a mistake not to tell people, for several reaasons:
- Your idea probably isn’t new anyway. Somebody has probably already tried it before you and realized why it doesn’t work.
- If you don’t share your idea, you don’t get any critical feedback. You’ll make more mistakes. It will be harder to launch it.
- Most people don’t care. They have their own problems. They’re not looking to copy ideas.
Tik Tok did reels and then Instagram copied the feature. Arguably, Instagram does it better now. Imagine the founder of Tik Tok getting angry with Zuckerberg and trying to shame him online. That would be ridiculous.
As Ben points out, reels go all the way back to Vine! Which corroborates point 1 above: the idea probably isn’t new. And your customers don’t care either way. They only care that your product solves their problems better than the competitors’ products.
People get angry because they hope to control more than they actually can. Ideas spread; we can’t control people’s speech. One can’t expect secrecy from people who didn’t agree to secrecy. If it’s important, like industry secrets or product launches, one should make people sign NDAs. If something is truly secret, the only person you should tell is your lawyer. Aside from that, sharing generously and openly is more profitable for you 99% of the time anyway.
It also pays to be brief: the more you write, the more text there is to criticize. It’s in Vincent’s own interest to be less verbose. Not sure he realizes that.
It also pays to be concise: the more you write, the more text there is to criticize. It’s in Vincent’s own interest to be less verbose. Not sure he realizes that.
I guess, the point I'm trying to make is really that it should not be coming with any form of punishment (like that this does not count for badges) IF the AI assist is clearly done in good faith.
Absence of a reward != punishment
These three paragraphs could be shortened to: ‘basing badges on non-AI use may discourage non-native speakers.’ Verbosity is a recurring issue
Fixed. The discussion title now uses title case: ‘Immortality, Billionaires, and Copying Business Ideas Is Not Immoral’.
Midnight Ride: Production Errors That Fix Themselves (Almost)
This takes me back to my startup days in Berlin. It was common knowledge among founders that anyone overly worried about telling people about their great idea because someone might ‘steal’ it was a newbie founder. It’s almost always a mistake not to tell people, for several reaasons:
- Your idea probably isn’t new anyway. Somebody has probably already tried it before you and realized why it doesn’t work.
- If you don’t share your idea, you don’t get any critical feedback. You’ll make more mistakes. It will be harder to launch it.
- Most people don’t care. They have their own problems. They’re not looking to copy ideas.
Tik Tok came up with reels and then Instagram copied the feature. Arguably, Instagram does it better now. Imagine the founder of Tik Tok getting angry with Zuckerberg and trying to shame him online. That would be ridiculous.
People get angry because they hope to control more than they actually can. Ideas spread; we can’t control people’s speech. One can’t expect secrecy from people who didn’t agree to secrecy. If it’s important, like industry secrets or product launches, one should make people sign NDAs. If something is truly secret, the only person you should tell is your lawyer. Aside from that, sharing generously and openly is more profitable for you 99% of the time anyway.
We’re talking about a friend of yours who you think might have a problem, but who hasn’t even signed up never mind voiced that concern to me directly. This is all hypothetical. I’m not gonna relax the rules just because one person who isn’t even a member might possibly not feel accommodated. If some day ten non-native members actually try and make an effort and then all tell me the same thing, now that would be a good reason to relax the rules.
Eh. Being a non-native speaker myself, I have no sympathy for other non-native speakers. Tell your friend to work harder and get better at English. Badges are rewards for personal effort, and I can’t reliably tell that apart from AI usage. The badge logic stays until further notice.
That all makes sense to me, thanks. But there is a cost: my previous badges were removed which means that my contributions would have stayed limited to 3 per day if I understand the rules correctly. This should change of course, now, that I do not use AI for responses, so I should be fine in the log run, but my friend, who would then disclose that he uses AI for all his discussions, would never be able to submit more than 3 ideas per day, and would also never be able to join more than one discussion per week because none of his responses would count towards earning the necessary badges https://veritula.com/badges.
My criticism goes deeper though: I really think that there is a case to make that for the goal you describe, to find a bit of truth (or maybe just the current best explanation), it is actually better to use AI, simply because we can spend less time correcting bad faith, misunderstandings, unclear language etc. (Also, one might just say "well, so it takes a bit more time, no problem" - but it's more complicated, because bad faith is often provoking emotions etc which often ends debates before finding a bit more truth)
In our sample discussion about animal consciousness, if I would correct for the "too long" and "not simple enough", I think it would be helpful. But of course, now that I know that you don't appreciate it and since you are currently the only one responding, I will gladly follow your wish not to use it.
I guess, the point I'm trying to make is really that it should not be coming with any form of punishment (like that this does not count for badges) IF the AI assist is clearly done in good faith.
I’m not using AI for this response and will not do so moving forward on Veritula to respect the rules and what seems to be the sentiment behind these rules (unless they change).
As written, the forum rules don’t ban AI. They say to disclose it. Someone may voice a preference about AI use and it’s up to you to honor it. Their preference doesn’t bind you like the forum rules do. But members will make decisions about who to spend time discussing with. Our discussion about animals, if you choose to continue it, will probably go better if you don’t use AI.
That said, it’s a good idea, especially for new members, to get a feel for the platform, study the rules, and understand the culture better before going full-steam ahead and submitting dozens of AI-assisted ideas. It’s best to exercise care when entering a new space and prove that you’re worth engaging with. (I’m not only talking about you specifically, I mean new members in general.) Checking a checkbox indicating AI use is a small cost, and it’s a good way to be transparent with readers of one’s ideas.
To that end, it pays to show an understanding that Veritula isn’t a debate club, and that the goal isn’t to win an argument (although winning and losing do happen here, in an objectively recognizable sense – though finding an error is rarely an actual ‘loss’). The goal is to find a bit of truth. It pays to show that you can change your mind, eg by saying things like ‘I never thought of it that way – you’ve given me a new way to look at things.’ Having your AI say something like that on your behalf obviously carries less weight than if you said it yourself. And excessive use of AI gives the impression that someone is just trying to win an argument. (Not saying you specifically – again, this is about the forum rules in general.)
My English is not great but the English from a Spanish friend of mine is considerably worse, and I wonder if I should tell him about this platform, because he would usually use AI to polish his English.
Your English is fine. Clearly good enough to have discussions. As for your friend, he can enlist the help of AI to translate ideas. Again, he’d just need to disclose it.
AI-generated text is notoriously verbose regardless of who came up with an idea.