3 ms·

> In this paper, we test the hypothesis that adaptive influence networks may be central to collective human intelligence with two preconditions: feedback and ne

by lonk11 5y ago

> In this paper, we test the hypothesis that adaptive influence networks may be central to collective human intelligence with two preconditions: feedback and network plasticity In the paper they had the participants of the experiment to manually pick who they want to follow. But what if the system connected them automatically to high signal-to-noise individuals based on feedback alone? I've been working on something like this with my hobby project https://linklonk.com https://linklonk.com - an information network where the connections between you and other users are determined by your ratings of content. When you upvote an article - you connect to other users who upvoted that article. When you downvote - your connection to those who upvoted it becomes weaker. That way the strength of your connection to other users captures the signal-to-noise ration of those users for you. The stronger you are connected to someone - the higher their other upvoted items are ranked on the "For you" page. For example, I upvoted this paper on LinkLonk: https://linklonk.com/item/6534389451373608960 https://linklonk.com/item/6534389451373608960 If you also upvote it then you will get connected to me and will see more of my recommendations on the main page. The next user who upvotes it will connect to me and to you, etc. Since you know that your content ratings have direct effect on what content your future self will see, you are incentivized to think whether each piece of content that you just consumed was truly worth your time. This kind of retrospective thinking is missing when we hit upvote/retweet/like in the existing social systems. My project is in a very early stage and suggestions/ideas are welcome.

high_byte 5y ago
sounds polarizing. I wouldn't decrease your connection upon downvoting, but I would increase connections with others who downvoted. I would only decrease connection over time without similar ratings.
- lonk11 5y ago
  The purpose of the downvote is for you to say what content wasted your time. Those who brought that content to you deserve to lose your attention so they do not waste your time in the future, do they not? That's why LinkLonk decreases your connection to those who upvoted it. It also displays a popup saying "You will see less content from N users and M feeds that upvoted this" to explain how the downvote button works. LinkLonk also increases your "downvote connection" to other who downvoted that item as you are suggesting. A "downvote connection" is how much weight the other person's downvote has for you. That is, it captures how good their past downvotes were for you and how much their future can be trusted. So there are two kinds of connections: - Upvote connection - gives others ability to promote/curate good content for you. - Downvote connection - how much others can bury/moderate bad content. And as you are also suggesting, the connection is decreased over time without similar ratings. Each time someone you are connected to upvotes something your connection to them becomes slightly weaker. So if you ignore content from a user/RSS feed then it will have lower ranking for you over time. So in practice the downvote button should not be used much at all.
Palmik 5y ago
Doesn't this create bubbles of like minded people? Do you believe that to be desirable?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  Not necessarily bubbles, could be just supportive, encouraging communities.
- lonk11 5y ago
  You are right, LinkLonk is a filter bubble. The difference from other systems (e.g., algorithmic feeds powered by machine learning that optimize for "engagement") that exhibit the filter bubble dynamics is that LinkLonk puts all of the control into the hands of the user. The user is responsible for the content they upvote which directly determines who they get content from in the future. In a sense this is similar to how users of RSS feed readers control which feeds they subscribe to. They are responsible for the content they consume. What LinkLonk adds is a transparent layer of automation that helps you subscribe/unsubscribe based on your content ratings. My hope is that LinkLonk will help people get more informed, but I cannot be sure. The project is a live experiment to find out if this is right system of incentives.
elevaet 5y ago
This sounds like a really interesting experiment. I hope you share your results here on HN. This approach reminds me a bit of the saying in neuroscience "if it fires together, it wires together"
- lonk11 5y ago
  You can think of every user as a neuron where upvotes on the same items strengthen their connections. Though there is one important bit of asymmetry: you connect to those who upvoted that item *before* you. That way people who recognize useful information earlier earn more trust. In a sense this is a "proof of work" - to recognize valuable content before it becomes popular. My hope is that this asymmetrical nature of connections will get less informed people to connect to more informed people. Which is the opposite of the echo-chamber effect - when less informed people are connected to similarly less informed peers. And yes, I'm slowly preparing to do a "Show NH" for LinkLonk. But I probably need to grow the number of active users a bit before I do that, otherwise the "Shown HN" will bring a lot of clicks that will just bounce.
  - elevaet 5y ago
    So let me get this straight - you become connected to those who upvoted the item before you, but not to those who upvoted after, right? So this incentivizes the avant garde, rather than the promoters of stuff that's already going viral. Very interesting.
    - lonk11 5y ago
      Correct. This also provides some protection from gaming of the system. You can't simply upvote a bunch of popular items to get other people who already upvoted it become connected to you. You have to be good at prediction what people will like in order to get them connected to you. And this is what a good curator does.
      - elevaet 5y ago
        I wonder how this dynamic would affect virality in relation to truthfullness? As in, will this dynamic tend to reward the spread of "edgy" fake news more than current network paradigms already do, or will it tend to slow its spread, or will it be neutral on that axis? Seems like a hypothesis that would need to be tested, but maybe you have a hunch or insight on the matter.

by lonk11 5y ago

high_byte 5y ago

sounds polarizing. I wouldn't decrease your connection upon downvoting, but I would increase connections with others who downvoted. I would only decrease connection over time without similar ratings.

lonk11 5y ago
The purpose of the downvote is for you to say what content wasted your time. Those who brought that content to you deserve to lose your attention so they do not waste your time in the future, do they not? That's why LinkLonk decreases your connection to those who upvoted it. It also displays a popup saying "You will see less content from N users and M feeds that upvoted this" to explain how the downvote button works. LinkLonk also increases your "downvote connection" to other who downvoted that item as you are suggesting. A "downvote connection" is how much weight the other person's downvote has for you. That is, it captures how good their past downvotes were for you and how much their future can be trusted. So there are two kinds of connections: - Upvote connection - gives others ability to promote/curate good content for you. - Downvote connection - how much others can bury/moderate bad content. And as you are also suggesting, the connection is decreased over time without similar ratings. Each time someone you are connected to upvotes something your connection to them becomes slightly weaker. So if you ignore content from a user/RSS feed then it will have lower ranking for you over time. So in practice the downvote button should not be used much at all.

Palmik 5y ago

Doesn't this create bubbles of like minded people? Do you believe that to be desirable?

forgotmypw17 5y ago
Not necessarily bubbles, could be just supportive, encouraging communities.
lonk11 5y ago
You are right, LinkLonk is a filter bubble. The difference from other systems (e.g., algorithmic feeds powered by machine learning that optimize for "engagement") that exhibit the filter bubble dynamics is that LinkLonk puts all of the control into the hands of the user. The user is responsible for the content they upvote which directly determines who they get content from in the future. In a sense this is similar to how users of RSS feed readers control which feeds they subscribe to. They are responsible for the content they consume. What LinkLonk adds is a transparent layer of automation that helps you subscribe/unsubscribe based on your content ratings. My hope is that LinkLonk will help people get more informed, but I cannot be sure. The project is a live experiment to find out if this is right system of incentives.

elevaet 5y ago

This sounds like a really interesting experiment. I hope you share your results here on HN. This approach reminds me a bit of the saying in neuroscience "if it fires together, it wires together"

lonk11 5y ago
You can think of every user as a neuron where upvotes on the same items strengthen their connections. Though there is one important bit of asymmetry: you connect to those who upvoted that item *before* you. That way people who recognize useful information earlier earn more trust. In a sense this is a "proof of work" - to recognize valuable content before it becomes popular. My hope is that this asymmetrical nature of connections will get less informed people to connect to more informed people. Which is the opposite of the echo-chamber effect - when less informed people are connected to similarly less informed peers. And yes, I'm slowly preparing to do a "Show NH" for LinkLonk. But I probably need to grow the number of active users a bit before I do that, otherwise the "Shown HN" will bring a lot of clicks that will just bounce.
- elevaet 5y ago
  So let me get this straight - you become connected to those who upvoted the item before you, but not to those who upvoted after, right? So this incentivizes the avant garde, rather than the promoters of stuff that's already going viral. Very interesting.
  - lonk11 5y ago
    Correct. This also provides some protection from gaming of the system. You can't simply upvote a bunch of popular items to get other people who already upvoted it become connected to you. You have to be good at prediction what people will like in order to get them connected to you. And this is what a good curator does.
    - elevaet 5y ago
      I wonder how this dynamic would affect virality in relation to truthfullness? As in, will this dynamic tend to reward the spread of "edgy" fake news more than current network paradigms already do, or will it tend to slow its spread, or will it be neutral on that axis? Seems like a hypothesis that would need to be tested, but maybe you have a hunch or insight on the matter.