The public social graph would be about who is a human, that can certify facts. Their opinion wouldn't really matter until you chose it to matter for you. Them being a human witness would only add credence to the accounts of the facts they witnessed, nothing more. You can still choose to disbelief the event if you have a good reason to (for example, even if you might believe a guy from Russia is a real person based on his social graph, if he certifies an event in Michigan, you might be skeptical of that account and decide to lower your own trust in that person). So there is a difference between the shared social graph - which is about a collective belief of who is a person, and your own trust, which you can modify as you wish. Unlike with Google and other big tech providers, there is not a singular "algorithm for trust" that can be manipulated.

You seem to be saying it will fail because people are tribal. I believe it will not fail, because the benefits of knowing the local social graph of each person will outweigh the tendency for opinion to split based on tribe. And the reason I think so is that trust evolved and exists in society; we do not only trust ourselves, and that's only possible if something like a social graph can work. The only issue is the scale, which can be solved by using a computer instead of computing it in our little heads.

The problem with the current systems is that reputation buying is not transparent. In my system, it would be a public record, who endorsed who. So you could go back and track the fake reputation.

Also real people have some TTL with their accounts. Unlike links, "I am real person" is not nearly as fungible.

By default you could choose not to trust. If you don't trust random strangers it's OK. So I don't see how it would damage someone's reputation worse than today.

It would potentially only add trust. Arguably, today we have bots because we have no other option than to trust without justification. With the public social graph, the trust above the baseline would be justifiable.

- "I, owner of account A, certify that owner of account B is human."

- "I, owner of account C, have a reason to trust/distrust the certification of account A about account B."

The collection of these statements would be the public social graph.

The social graph would then be used to establish provenance of facts, which are statements of the form:

- "I, owner of account B, certify account A being witness to event X."

Now whether to believe this or not depends on whether A certified B to be a human, and how much you transitively believe that statement.

So there is a kind of reversal - your statement about your uncle being human helps him to certify what you say, and vice versa.

If enough people were willing to publicly certify that their fellow contacts are human, anybody could then assign trust to each social graph node based on the trust they have in the path to them. It would completely decentralize the algorithms and remove the fake accounts as less trustworthy.

I think people tried this with PGP but it never really caught on.

Leadership: Given task to produce something someone wants (B), get an expert (A->B) who knows how get it from something you have (A). If such expert doesn't exist, build a team of experts A->C and C->B, for a suitable intermediate product C.

Coding: Given task to calculate something user wants (B), find a function (A->B) that calculates it from user input (A). If that function doesn't exist, build it from functions A->C and C->B, for a suitable intermediate result C.

I think perfect rationality doesn't exist, because it is rational to reject something that you don't understand. So rationality of a given physical system will always be bounded.

But I think you can't. It seems to me, instead, one is better at googling/prompting the better they are in a particular domain, but it only applies in that domain. Like knowing a jargon is not a skill, knowing the domain is.

Why? One, the companies like Google or Anthropic or OpenAI are working hard for it not to be a skill. That's the whole point. Second, these system are opaque, so there is no understanding to happen, only superstition, which might be wrong or change tomorrow.

There is also a variation of Amdahl's law - if you automate more things, the predictability of remaining work will decrease, because it will now take more time.

Also, formal languages still trump natural language. Despite LLMs; I think it's a stepping stone to something better but "vibe coding" will turn out to be unsustainable.

This means in triage calculus (unlike in lambda calculus, which lacks means to quote programs) you can include expected input data types in your programs.

You can also construct any type theory syntactically by putting together a set of terms in triage calculus which only normalize when composed with correct types.

In triage calculus, you can then study types and propositions as any other programs - using self-interpretation. But I believe, as I detail below, a univalence principle is needed, to postulate the equivalence of metalogical triage calculus and its representation within triage calculus.

(I used equal to mean the latter, this is colloquial, so I should watch my language.)

And what I am saying in my version of univalence is not that these two are the same, but rather, we can simulate beta-reduction equivalence using self-interpretation.

My version of the axiom states, that two terms x, y are beta-equivalent iff the term interpret(quote(x)) is beta-equivalent to term interpret(quote(y)).

(Note that quote() is identity function in triage calculus, I only write it for clarity.)

So my axiom postulates that the metalogical notion of equivalence is equivalent to the one we can study using whatever interpret() - a self-interpreter - is.

Whether my axiom is related to univalence in HoTT, I am not sure. But it feels similar.

But I find univalence axiom intriguing. I am interested in different approach to types, using triage calculus, which is more "materialist" than "structuralist" - type is given by the structure of the (quoted) term in normal form (unlike lambda calculus, triage calculus makes quoting easy). And I feel like univalence is related to quoting, something like if the two quoted terms are equal under "standard self-interpreter", then they are equal.

The biggest example is probably the CO2 emissions and global warming, but also the social costs of economic outcasting - making people jobless, homeless or otherwise stressed due to poor distribution of resources.

That I believe was always a problem for true cyberpunk games. In cyberpunk stories, information is everything. I am not sure I have seen a game that does cyberpunk really well by leaning into this complexity.