Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Polis v10 (that's binary I suppose) #1725

Open
colinmegill opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 0 comments
Open

Polis v10 (that's binary I suppose) #1725

colinmegill opened this issue Oct 18, 2023 · 0 comments

Comments

@colinmegill
Copy link
Member

colinmegill commented Oct 18, 2023

“What’s next for polis?” An attempt at a casual, but dense, answer here in issues, as we approach a polis-1.0.0-stable after 11 years of development, and after an exciting year of technological advancements related to processing text.

At a high level, from my perspective, the next complete versions of machine learning augmented deliberation systems will have the following principles and aspects:

  1. Reduce reporting costs by 10,000x to 1,000,000x
  1. Integrate additional signals
  1. Conquer “initialization”
  • Current polis conversations need to be ‘set up’. Exercises seen as politically legitimate are usually ‘initialize → a process → conclude’.
  • Path 1: new systems are “always on” or can be initiated by participants, think subreddits, — see: “‘Coherent Mode’ for the World’s Public Square” https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.12571
  • Path 2: discrete conversations still exist, but initialization is more automatic, with time intensive steps like seeding existing perspectives handled via automatic processes, — See: https://papers.societylibrary.org/papers/diablo_canyon/map (click to expand all arguments mapped from all sources)
  1. Use people’s time more efficiently
  • Funnily enough, polis usually collects more votes than it needs! People get really excited to participate when the exercise is legitimate, transparent, and connected to real outcomes.
  • This means future systems will have people do other tasks (like rating summaries, discussing tradeoffs, being involved with moderation, or participating in real and simulated small group discussions) and predict most votes.
  • See: https://ai.facebook.com/research/cicero/
  • As systems move to predicting votes, they’ll stay safe by giving participants more control over how they are represented, by allowing them to monitor the outputs which represent them. Self-rated representation can be done recursively at varying group sizes and varying fidelity of summary.
  1. Identify experts and smaller groups
  • Polis doesn’t always have metadata to rely on as a filter, and it's safe to assume worldviews will cross metadata sometimes, so, unsupervised approaches here are still interesting.
  • Example: Let’s say, as an example, groups of teachers participating in a conversation about education have a very specific and different world view and vocabulary and specific knowledge… but there are only 7 shop/trade education teachers in a conversation of 1000 people. It’s a research problem to minimize noise (we don’t want 1000 / 7 groups) and maximize interpretability (200 groups isn’t going to be useful to interpret the results, which is why k-means is locked to 2-5 clusters at present).
  • Perhaps this will even be aware of similarities in the semantic aspects of the feature space. That is, topic aware clustering might take into account whether the statements are saying similar things.
  1. Plumb more of the space of opinion
@compdemocracy compdemocracy locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 8, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant