Posts
Comments
I will write what I think about this topic. I thought mentioning the solutions in the 2nd post is enough, but maybe describing and discussing them more is a good idea.
Thank you for your opinion. The goal is to build a model of the world that can be used to increase the collective intelligence of people and computers, so usefulness in 99% of cases is enough.
When problems associated with popularity occur, we can consider what to do with the remaining 1%. There are more reliable methods of authenticating users. For example, electronic identity cards are available in most European Union countries. In some countries, they are even used for voting over the Internet. I don't know how popular they are among citizens but I assume that their popularity will increase.
> I feel that one of the best uses of a probability-weighted knowledgebase is to gather information on things that suffer from a miasma of controversy and special interests.
I think you meant "don't suffer".
> Cyc does not work.
What if the group of users adding knowledge was significantly larger than the Cyc team?.
Edit: I ask because CyC is built by a group of its employees, it is not crowdsourced. Crowdsourcing often involves a much larger group of people, like in Wikipedia.
> In principle, it could probably succeed with enough data input, but it is not practical.
Why is it not practical?
> that would be hard to notice
What do you mean by "to notice" here?
There is too much stuff, such that it takes way way too long for a human to enter everything.
Is it also true for a large group of people? If yes then why?
On https://consensusknowledge.com, I described the idea of building a knowledge database that is understandable for both people and computers, that is, for all intelligent agents. It would be a component responsible for memory and interactions with other agents. Using this component, agents could increase intelligence much faster, which could lead to the emergence of the collective human superintelligence, AGI, and generally the collective superintelligence of all intelligent agents. At the same time, due to the interpretability of the database of knowledge and information, such intelligence would be much safer. Thinking performed by AI would also be much more interpretable.
Please let me know what you think about this.
My name is Dariusz Dacko. On https://consensusknowledge.com I described the idea of building a knowledge base using crowdsourcing. I think that this could significantly increase the collective intelligence of people and ease the construction of safe AGI. Thus, I hope I will be able to receive comments from LessWrong users about this idea.
I proposed a system where AGI agents can cooperate with people: https://consensusknowledge.com.