3 ms·
> We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot. Because nobody else is willing to pay
by skissane 2y ago
> We are paying PhD level experts to produce novel work exclusively available through an overly optimistic, lying, robot.
Because nobody else is willing to pay them to do that. Research grants, peer review publications, etc, are not set up to reward stuff like “produce one thousand random examples of expressing thoughtful uncertainty with respect to questions relevant to your discipline for which there is currently no consensus answer”
> What if those expert just published the stuff freely online instead. Surely that would be more productive and trustworthy.
I’m sure many of them would be happy to do so if someone is paying them
- ambicapter 2y agoStill kind of an absurdist comedy that no one wants to pay for expert opinions, but they _do_ want to pay for a realistic-sounding, 80% correct version of an expert opinion.
- skissane 2y agoIt isn't about what they are willing to pay for, it is about how much they are willing to pay for it. A "realistic-sounding, 80% correct version of an expert opinion" only costs US$20/month–and if you are willing to compromise a bit on correctness and/or privacy, you can even get it for free. No way you are getting a real expert at that price. Whereas, pool $20/month across millions of subscribers, and suddenly you have enough money – and, more importantly, future revenue growth prospects with which to convince investors to give you even more money – to afford roomfuls of real experts to try to get that "80% correct" percentage higher.
- relativ575 2y agoPeople pay for expert opinion all the time. The experts also have realistic sounding but wrong opinion all the time, to the point that seeking 2nd opinion is the norm. Emphasize "2nd" there -- we can afford to only pay two, or at most a handful number of experts.