Michael Briffa

Empty criticism, issue not addressed. The checkbox provides no value and delays badges, limiting the amount one can interact with the site.

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.

I used Wispr Flow, speech-to-text. Tough line to draw.

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.

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.

I think this did not address what I think is the key part of the question which is 'how can something have an intrinsic value if value is subjective'.

I simply do not think all value is subjective. One can alter value through their own subjective experience. I personally still hold on to a paper napkin from a sentimental trip that I went on, and that creates a personal premium value for that napkin that goes above the utility and scarcity conditions of that napkin's value.

The contrary is obviously true. I doubt there are many monks that intend on buying Ferraris, even if they had the means to do so, so their subjective value impacts what would be considered the total of a Ferrari.

However, to speak of the 'intrinsic' side. I think value is best split into a multiplicative relationship between utility and scarcity. A toll road is a great example. Many times, there aren't many alternative roads, if any, and its utility at getting you to where you need to go should be non-zero assuming you intend on going where that road takes you. So, if a toll road were to crop up on the market selling for $1 dollar, assuming no 'strings attached', that would be a clear mispricing one could diagnose on an 'intrinsic value basis'.

I think it's incorrect to say that something cannot be intrinsically valued due to subjectivity being the primary motivator for humans, and so since subjectivity drives exchange, valuing that relationship is not possible. We can have long lasting theories of human behaviour or social systems that allow us to assign an objective/intrinsic value.