Comment on: Deep Funding

Deep funding combines two ideas: 1. Value as a graph: instead of asking "how much did X contribute to humanity?", ask "how much of the credit for Y belongs to X?" 2. Distilled human judgement: an open market of AIs fills in all the weights, human jury randomly spot-checks them https://x.com/TheDevanshMehta/status/186… (1) has been a growing paradigm recently, for good reason. Contribution is hard to measure in the abstract: if you ask people how much they would pay to save N birds, they answer $80 for N=2000 and N=200000. "Local" questions like "is A or B more valuable to C?" are much more tractable. (2) is based on ideas in my info finance post: https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/11… . Anyone can use any methods (eg. AI) to suggest weights for *all* edges, a human jury does detailed analysis on a random subset. The submissions that are most compatible with the jury answers decide the final output. https://deepfunding.org/

farcaster.xyz

by mishaderidder.eth13093 🥝 • 2y • warpcast.com

AI summary of the linked article

Deep funding proposes combining two ideas: treating value as a graph, where the question becomes how much of the credit for one project belongs to another, and using distilled human judgement, where an open market of AIs proposes weights for all edges and a human jury spot-checks a random subset. The author says the graph approach has grown as a paradigm because contribution is hard to measure in the abstract, while "local" comparisons such as whether A or B is more valuable to C are more tractable. Under the proposed method, the submissions most compatible with the jury's answers determine the final output. The article links to deepfunding.org for the project.

Recommended by 2 curators