Yes, this has been an independent project for many years, but has had many endorsements from computer science to cognitive science. This project has had no problems attracting attention and interest from many qualified people, and if you want to see how strong the bones are, just ask for a demo, or watch the demo on the site. It's probably not best to just go off of your first reaction, which seems a little tense and aggravated.

thx for feedback. project is in stealth mode. always a good idea to be skeptical.

i think natural skepticism is a good idea. This is an independent project outside of academia, some think that projects outside of academia are crank projects by default, comes with the territory. Project should be judged on its own merits. This is just a stealth site.

Yes, you were expecting a response. I checked who submitted it: it is you!

Hi. Thank you for your response. All of our work is transparent, if there is something you want to see or know, reach out on linked in or twitter. Other than that I think you are misrepresenting what is on the site, it says nothing of what you write

Besides the obvious irony of criticizing a suspect LLM work and then asking another LLM to criticize it to prove it, your question was loaded:

"Explain why this paragraph is contrived and grammatically incorrect: [..]"

Current LLMs are trained to follow your leash.

I don't see any grammatical errors, just some possible missing punctuation. The arguments Gemini gives are just opinions about stylistic choices. Could you point out the specific grammar mistakes you see?

Now ask it why the paragraph is well written.

Our entire system is trained on LLMs, so yes LLMs are used to write summaries. Thanks for the feedback.

Stealth mode project that is publishing whitepapers to HN and replying in comments about its stealthiness?

That's a static page with underlined text that are not links. Does anything interactive start after "Login With Google" (that I won't press) ? Anyway, my point is that they should have presented the transcript of at least one round of the process and demonstrate the improvement it produces. It's much less time consuming for a reader that does not want to invest hours in videos or actually taking part of the experiment. On the other side, those readers might not be of interest to the authors so this is a way to let them go.

If/since the universe of human bad faith is finite, it does seem possible (and useful) to detect all such forms in transactions that are on the record.

This won't solve out-of-band corruption and might indeed increase its value, and hence increase the value of participating in a corruption network.

gosh darn unintended consequences...

In CGT, there is no third party arbitrator, no admin, the resolution is reached player to player. thx for response

You're really way out of left field. You are welcome to a live demonstration of how CGT works.

Yea, and so IMO this idea makes sense if you assume that bad conversation is predictable conversation (this is a simplified way of saying this but this idea was formalized within the field of literary theory by a man named Wolfgang Iser as a response to the issue of the hermeneutic circle and the merger of horizons). A conversation is evolved to its best possible outcome when it encourages the human in the loop to face their preconceived assumptions about the world and effectively do the work to come to their own conclusions rather than act as a follower

But game theory also presumes a closed, on-the-record world. E.g., it doesn't handle dumping (loss as strategic gain) without opening the scope of game, but there are no scope bounds since value of any type is exchangeable (land for peace...). So game theory like newtonian physics only helps in narrowly constrained systems, but none of the real systems where help is needed are so constrained (banking laws notwithstanding).

Desktop, as opposed to mobile. (on mobile the site looks pretty similar to most others). On desktop it feels like a pdf, but extremely light weight (in a very nice way; loads quickly, scrolls perfectly [unlike pdfs], and isn't cluttered). Just a crisp experience.