alt Hacker NewsThey should reboot, focused on
1) humans (AI assisted or not) answering with real-money stakes, and
2) people betting on which humans are correct (borrow page from prediction markets)
This does four things simultaneously:
1) It introduces consequences for being wrong, which in turn introduces real asymmetric incentives to be contrarian-but-correct - which are high-value answers you don't get out of a stock model
2) It creates real-world incentives for human guided votes to answers (because, again, there's a real-world stake)
3) Together, this gets humans back on the platform answering questions, which creates meaningful exhaust data that can be sold back to the AI companies.
4) It creates incentives to game the system, which creates yet-more exhaust data for training anti-fraud AI systems
Replies
> 2) people betting on which humans are correct (borrow page from prediction markets)
> 4) It creates incentives to game the system, which creates yet-more exhaust data for training anti-fraud AI systems
I'm struggling to think of how this [gaming] presents any kind of net benefit, and I'm likewise struggling on how to mitigate it. How do you envision this working?
Who decides which person is correct?
Maybe someone new could create a new community modeled along these lines where experts could exchange knowledge, or more junior people something else, for answers.
So instead of just not getting paid for my help I might even get to pay if my answer is deemed to be not good enough. Thanks but no thanks.
The discussion around who gets a green checkmark and +15 rep was bad enough. I can't imagine how it would be if there was real money involved.