Max Tegmark

they each have totally different versions of the truth, right?

If they all had the same truth that they trusted for good reason, because they could check it and verify it and not have to believe in some self-proclaimed authority, right?

There wouldn't be nearly as much hate.

There'd be a lot more understanding instead.

And this is, I think, something AI can help enormously with.

For example,

A little baby step in this direction is this website called Metaculous, where people bet and make predictions, not for money, but just for their own reputation.

And it's kind of funny, actually.

You treat the humans like you treat AIs.

You have a loss function where they get penalized if they're super confident on something, and then the opposite happens.

Yeah.

Whereas if you're kind of humble and then you're like, I think it's 51% chance this is going to happen.

And then the other happens, you don't get penalized much.

And what you can see is that some people are much better at predicting than others.

They've earned your trust, right?

One project that I'm working on right now is an outgrowth of Improve the News Foundation together with the Metaculous folks is seeing if we can really scale this up a lot with more powerful AI.

Because I would love it.

I would love for there to be a really powerful truth seeking system where that is trustworthy because it keeps being right about stuff and people who come to it and maybe look at its latest trust ranking of different pundits and newspapers, et cetera.

If they wanna know why someone got a low score, they can click on it and see all the predictions that they actually made and how they turned out.

This is how we do it in science.