Oly Sourbut

And then that article itself or that paper itself has some context and so on.

So there's some structure there.

And then scientific papers, I mean, they're a bit better, right?

But we've all read papers where we think the citations are

Well, some of us have written papers where we think the citations could be better.

So, yeah, absolutely.

I think the way we're conceiving this is can we be as robust as possible to these varying scales of contributions?

Adversariality is a really important part of this.

So the community notes example is a case where it's supposed to be as adversarially robust as possible.

Because, of course, in a large community of communicating individuals, people have different priorities.

Sometimes they compete.

And sometimes it benefits me for you to believe something that maybe I don't actually believe.

And so, you know, this is deception and this is a huge problem, but we think that the, we think an epistemic set can be constructed, which is at least largely robust to that kind of thing.

Improving practices.

Yeah, there is a kind of bias.

I've forgotten the name that people use for it, but there's a certain kind of overly trusting approach to using automated systems and computers in general.

I don't know how widespread this bias is still today.

I do wonder if some of the research done on that may have been older.

I don't know what the latest and greatest research on that is now.

It might be that I would hope at least that people have kind of learned to be a bit more skeptical, but I'm not sure.