"Implementing quadratic voting in practice is difficult because it’s so hard to suppress a black market for vote trading that is incentivized to exist."
- I don't think this is a problem particular to QV; you need voting to be anonymous in order to avoid a black market in $$ for votes with other voting systems.
- I think there are other bigger problems with QV, e.g. the question of how to determine what goes on the ballot.
I understand that while language models are able to simulate a conversation, they are limited in their ability to capture a singular worldview or experience. When attempting to develop characters and conversations within a chat, I found it's important to recognize that a single conversation in a bubble is unlikely to result in genuine contrast or individuality. Instead, it is often necessary to have multiple conversations with various characters in order to build out their personalities and create situations that feel authentic. Then you mix them.
Rather than simply providing a language model with reduced opinions from multiple characters, it is more effective to build individual characters and introduce them to one another, in separate conversations. This allows for a more realistic response that is based on each character's unique condition and perspective. By having separate conversations and selecting key pieces to carry forward, it enables us to develop complex situations that result in compelling dialogue and meaningful interactions. I even ask the model to select from the possible conversations.
Tl.dr; I think that having separate character arcs that are well developed, you can introduce them to each-other in a more effective fashion that inspires a better conversation.
"Implementing quadratic voting in practice is difficult because it’s so hard to suppress a black market for vote trading that is incentivized to exist."
- I don't think this is a problem particular to QV; you need voting to be anonymous in order to avoid a black market in $$ for votes with other voting systems.
- I think there are other bigger problems with QV, e.g. the question of how to determine what goes on the ballot.
I understand that while language models are able to simulate a conversation, they are limited in their ability to capture a singular worldview or experience. When attempting to develop characters and conversations within a chat, I found it's important to recognize that a single conversation in a bubble is unlikely to result in genuine contrast or individuality. Instead, it is often necessary to have multiple conversations with various characters in order to build out their personalities and create situations that feel authentic. Then you mix them.
Rather than simply providing a language model with reduced opinions from multiple characters, it is more effective to build individual characters and introduce them to one another, in separate conversations. This allows for a more realistic response that is based on each character's unique condition and perspective. By having separate conversations and selecting key pieces to carry forward, it enables us to develop complex situations that result in compelling dialogue and meaningful interactions. I even ask the model to select from the possible conversations.
Tl.dr; I think that having separate character arcs that are well developed, you can introduce them to each-other in a more effective fashion that inspires a better conversation.
Of course, written with the assistance of GPT-3.