johnwarden
commented
1 year ago Good comments. I have fixed #1-#3. I have removed the stuff about the critical thread and about group judgment aggregation to focus on the core idea.
For #4, I think there is a dilemma like New page on hacker news. Ideally, all comments get enough attention to produce a good estimate on whether they change votes. But there might not be enough attention to go around. So what attention there is may be focused on just one or two comments that have changed at least one vote.
The mechanics of attention allocation here are probably beyond the scope of this introductory article. But if you have that question other readers will. I wonder if there is one sentence we can add somewhere that at least addresses the question.
1. Broken Sentence:
2. The link doesn't exist: https://social-protocols.org/distributed-bayesian-reasoning-introduction
3. The critical thread seems to be oversimplified. There could be many of those important threads, each discussing a different poll option. I suggest removing the critical-thread part altogether.
4. Who decides that a comment is worth showing to all participants? In theory this can be automatically detected, by measuring which comment has changed a vote. But which are the candidates in the first place? It sounds like a core group has to participate and read all the comments to decide which ones are shown to everybody else. But who is this core group and who is everybody else?