Correct credit-assignment for this: I got this rule from Eric Weinstein, who seems to think it very important. I’ve been trying to do it some since.
Correct credit-assignment for this: I got this rule from Eric Weinstein, who seems to think it very important. I’ve been trying to do it some since.
The thing that seems necessary to me is having a way to transmit good ideas from those who reliably generate them to those who can act on them. If, for example, Bob reliably adopts all of Adam’s ideas, and folks attribute them to Bob, and act on these ideas, that’s fine.
In practice, I could imagine it being sufficiently specific to say that our good ideas emerge from some recognized nexus of a few dozen people.
Can you explain what you mean by “correct credit-tracking” and “new good ideas”?
I see, so it’s more of a “Who said it first” kind of tracking rather than a reputation system like loan credit.
That will incentivize useful ideas. Might also weakly incentivize the generation of ideas that contain no information whatsoever (not unlike the library of babel.) I would guess credit-tracking would be a useful tool for a human to gauge where an idea might originate but would probably take some extra components to make it a correct credit-tracker without opening it up to be gamed for some kind of profit (or status/incentive/ect). So I guess I agree with the claim.
Anna might have different definitions, but here are mine:
Basically, there is usually one (or a few) strong proponents of an idea when it’s first voiced. Those proponents (or someone who picks it up) does a lot of work to explain and popularize that idea. All those people deserve credit, because sometimes other people come and take those ideas and present as basically their own / ideas they just found around.
Ideas that are still correct. For example, that AI safety is important and highly under-prioritized.
This is one of the causes of my believing AI Safety should show its history.