Understood on raising the bar for writing. I think there’s a tradeoff; you might be wasting your time but you do get the visible evidence you’ve been thinking about it (although evidence that you thought about something but didn’t bother to research others’ thinking on that topic is… questionably positive).
But sure, if that’s what you or anyone finds motivating, it would be great to get the value from that use of time by cataloguing it better.
It does need to be mostly-automated though. People with deep knowledge have little time to read let alone to aid others’ reading.
It does need to be mostly-automated though. People with deep knowledge have little time to read let alone to aid others’ reading.
Yes, exactly. I’m getting quite idealistic here, but I’m imagining it as an ecosystem.
People with deep knowledge wouldn’t need to waste their time with things that are obviously reduplication of existing ideas, but would be able to find anything novel that is currently lost in the noise.
The entry point for relative novices would be posting some question or claim (there isn’t much difference between a search to a search engine and a prompt for conversation on social media) then very low effort spiders would create potential ties between what they said and places in the many conversation graphs it could fit. This would be how a user “locates themselves” in the conversation. From this point they could start learning about the conversation graph surrounding them, navigating either by reading nearby nodes or other posts within their node, or by writing new related posts that spiders either suggest are at other locations in the graph, or suggest that are original branches off from the existing graph.
If you are interested in watching specific parts of the graph you might get notified that someone has entered your part of the graph and review their posts as written, which would let you add higher quality human links, more strongly tying them into the conversation graph. You might also decide that they are going in interesting directions, in which case you might paraphrase their idea as a genuinely original node branching off from the nearby location. You might instead decide that the spiders were mistaken about locating this person’s posting as being in the relevant part of the graph, in which case you could mark opposition to the link, weakening it and providing a negative training signal for the spiders (or other people) who suggested the link.
To some extent this is how things already work with tagging, but it really doesn’t come close to my ideals of deeply deduplicating conversations into their simplest (but fully represented) form.
Understood on raising the bar for writing. I think there’s a tradeoff; you might be wasting your time but you do get the visible evidence you’ve been thinking about it (although evidence that you thought about something but didn’t bother to research others’ thinking on that topic is… questionably positive).
But sure, if that’s what you or anyone finds motivating, it would be great to get the value from that use of time by cataloguing it better.
It does need to be mostly-automated though. People with deep knowledge have little time to read let alone to aid others’ reading.
Yes, exactly. I’m getting quite idealistic here, but I’m imagining it as an ecosystem.
People with deep knowledge wouldn’t need to waste their time with things that are obviously reduplication of existing ideas, but would be able to find anything novel that is currently lost in the noise.
The entry point for relative novices would be posting some question or claim (there isn’t much difference between a search to a search engine and a prompt for conversation on social media) then very low effort spiders would create potential ties between what they said and places in the many conversation graphs it could fit. This would be how a user “locates themselves” in the conversation. From this point they could start learning about the conversation graph surrounding them, navigating either by reading nearby nodes or other posts within their node, or by writing new related posts that spiders either suggest are at other locations in the graph, or suggest that are original branches off from the existing graph.
If you are interested in watching specific parts of the graph you might get notified that someone has entered your part of the graph and review their posts as written, which would let you add higher quality human links, more strongly tying them into the conversation graph. You might also decide that they are going in interesting directions, in which case you might paraphrase their idea as a genuinely original node branching off from the nearby location. You might instead decide that the spiders were mistaken about locating this person’s posting as being in the relevant part of the graph, in which case you could mark opposition to the link, weakening it and providing a negative training signal for the spiders (or other people) who suggested the link.
To some extent this is how things already work with tagging, but it really doesn’t come close to my ideals of deeply deduplicating conversations into their simplest (but fully represented) form.