hoofish | 7 months ago
hoofish's comments
hoofish | 7 months ago | on: Super Intelligence Is Collective Intelligence
The basic unit of collective intelligence is a co-intelligence, a paired coupling.
hoofish | 7 months ago | on: AI Playbook for the Great Game
How to weaponize harmony and make the web great again. (Symbiquity Field Manual, Beta Edition — Powered by the TAP Protocol)
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
Well if you want to sign in, or repeat our steps, or try CGT for yourself, just let me know
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
Wow, you're clever. Like I said, I was not expecting such a response,duh, of course I was the poster. over 5k visits to the site. I think the layer of suspicion you put on everything is kinda ridiculous.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
No, that is a misunderstanding. No third party or no AI, or AI training data, is used to arrive at a consensus decision, humans have over-ride in the system.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
Yes, this has been an independent project for many years, but has had many endorsements from computer science to cognitive science. This project has had no problems attracting attention and interest from many qualified people, and if you want to see how strong the bones are, just ask for a demo, or watch the demo on the site. It's probably not best to just go off of your first reaction, which seems a little tense and aggravated.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
There isn't any buzz words being used, you could simply look up with the words mean if you don't understand them.
"Conversational" is plain english for conversation. "Game Theory" implies what it says.
Which words made it so challenging? Let me know and I can explain.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
I think you have a misunderstanding, but you are welcome to believe your first reaction to something you are not familiar with!
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
Ummm, clearly it is! Why does something have to be cranky just because you don't understand it? Maybe that's on you, dude.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
I think it is silly to load everything up with so much suspicion.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
These are just grumpy posters, while I was not expecting the post to get all of this attention, its usually the ones who are reactive or trolling who respond here. They want to find so many mistakes just so they don't have to admit to themselves that they don't understand what the project is or how it works.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
The company is in stealth mode, thanks for clarifying.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
Our entire system is trained on LLMs, so yes LLMs are used to write summaries. Thanks for the feedback.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
You're really way out of left field. You are welcome to a live demonstration of how CGT works.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
You have a very narrow way of conducting a review :)
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
yes, i often seed on social media as the project evolves to get feedback.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
Hi. Thank you for your response. All of our work is transparent, if there is something you want to see or know, reach out on linked in or twitter. Other than that I think you are misrepresenting what is on the site, it says nothing of what you write
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
Hi, thanks for your response. If you reach out to the founder on linked in, he is happy to give you a demonstration.
hoofish | 1 year ago | on: Conversational Game Theory
i think natural skepticism is a good idea. This is an independent project outside of academia, some think that projects outside of academia are crank projects by default, comes with the territory. Project should be judged on its own merits. This is just a stealth site.
page 1
Collective intelligence requires ternary logic: a flexible, context-aware system of sensemaking that can hold multiple perspectives and still arrive at a consensus.
But in Western democracy, competition flattens this into binary choices: votes, sides, battles. Then social media adds a second competing voting algorithm, further compounding the collapse. Now we have two binary systems, both collapsing, both trying to manage a complex world that demands nuance. Binary systems cannot sustain collective intelligence unless limited through voting.
Voting is not transparent.
Voting, contrary to popular opinion––is not a transparent method for consensus building in a collective intelligence. Voting can hide reasoning or thinking behind the vote, the influence to actually cast the vote. It doesn’t matter that the vote can hide the identity (which is should!), it hides the important part, the influence.
Today, thousands of political influencers from across the spectrum are all — knowingly or not — participating in the same democracy-collapsing exercise. The content doesn’t matter. The political position doesn’t matter. The game is the same.
When enshittification hits the fan, what’s actually splattering is the failure of our collective ability to think together. Everything gets amplified under competition and conflict, with no mechanism for resolution.