3 ms·
I agree, but the fee should be a deposit placed by both parties willing to have a review, with the loosing side paying. Direct payments for reviews would create
by Faark 7y ago
I agree, but the fee should be a deposit placed by both parties willing to have a review, with the loosing side paying. Direct payments for reviews would create bad incentives to not improve their AI.
Or strait up go for external arbitrators. But "I'm willing to put money behind my words" seems like an easy signal against abusive mass claims.
- stephen_g 7y agoI really like that idea. Even if you only make both sides put up $5 each, loser pays, that would add up a lot for automated bots making fraudulent claims and hopefully not too much for people being claimed against. If a single human reviewer takes 15 minutes on average to process each claim, then that's $20 an hour coming in per reviewer, which could make it viable. Hopefully that would have the dual effect - firstly making it too expensive for bots to make thousands of fraudulent claims, massively reducing the volume of claims, and at the same time having humans hopefully making fair decisions instead of the AI just assuming the claimant is correct.