It's saying, "AI needs consistent, scored rules for communication, so it can self-train being a person the same way it self-trains winning games of Go" (sure).

Then it says "we have those rules" (they don't) "and they work great" (they don't) "and you can't see them" (sure).

Exactly! And it was obviouslly written by (or with help of) a LLM. The first definition is even gramatically incorrect! Lets see what gemini thinks of the first paragraph if I force it to criticize it:

https://g.co/gemini/share/97c1d475aae1

thx for response. I think it is pretty straight forward on the site. project is in stealth mode. "Conversational Game Theory" is pretty straightforward.

I would also love some more traditional explanation of the ideas. My impression is the author is operating outside "the field", in a traditional academic sense, whether you are referring to AI/ML or game theory research. I had a bit of a search for citations or other mentions of their 9x3 nerrative logic or Conversational Game theory and only found their own sites (in a few different places https://bigmotherdao.com/f-a-q/, parley.aikiwiki.com) or an article under some contention by the author themselves on RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rome_Viharo. The mentioned professor James H. Fallon doesn't appear to have clear links to project outside of what is stated in the article.

My crank-o-meter (great phrase) overflowed at this point, but I am also genuinely interested in some kind of more clarity around the ideas, or where they came from in an academic legacy sense, as they felt like they might have some interesting bones.

Maybe someone with stronger google foo can find more, or confirm absence?

I'm surprised something where the crankmeter goes off so strongly made it to the front page.

Hi, thanks for feedback. Project is in stealth mode at the moment, I was not expecting the response.

It's worse than that. The entire notion of an independent arbiter is deceptive at best, because the decision making will always come down to how the questions are framed.

The claim here is that an automated process backed with enough data and computational power can distill any of the world's most intractable conflicts and come up with a compromise immune to "toxicity" and human bad-faith. I'd submit that in any conflict in which at least one actor is acting in bad faith to begin with, in the absence of an overriding ethical framework, any such compromise would result in a worse outcome than making a decision that one side was right and the other wrong. It's the compromise between hens and wolves.

in CGT, humans make the final decisions, it is a game designed for humans first, AI just came later

this is a so-often overlooked point.

parley.aikiwiki.com. ?

Well, strictly speaking, it is suitable for places where all actors make choices in ways we can predict. So even if an actor was choosing, say, uniformly at random (and we knew this fact), we'd be able to incorporate it into analysis to get some expected behavior.

That is in classical game theory, in CGT, it is assumed the actors are both rational and irrational

Cheers, friend! Thankful for HN and all the great perspectives from around the world. Also thanks for the phrase "Make AI Great Again"! :D

What is a "desktop website"?