Has anyone studied the idea of rewarding people according to how much their input improves the aggregate (whatever algorithm is being used), rather than for their individual accuracy?
I'm struggling with the precise semantics of the spreadsheet. What does it mean to have a high "Is" number or "Want" number? From your example, it seems like the "Want" column is superfluous.
Liv Boeree writes:
‹‹ I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that building a proto-basilisk and attaching it to a giant search engine is a bad idea ››
about Juan Cambeiro's experience:
‹‹ uhhh, so Bing started calling me its enemy when I pointed out that it's vulnerable to prompt injection attacks ››
‹‹ I noticed a strong commonality among the questions that I had found particularly fascinating: most of them involved reasoning about knowledge, information, or uncertainty under constraints ››
This is also true for me, and I loved reading this post for this reason!
Back in the day I applied to study with Joe Halpern because of his work on epistemic logic, and ended up studying Logic in Amsterdam. At some point I got tired of Logic and its contrived puzzles (Muddy Children, etc) and decided to focus on Probability instead.