So forgive my, "adversarial," questions here, but you seem to be encouraging adversarial thinking, which is laudable, but also invites adversarial thinking onto the construct you're building as well.

Marqt, much like prediction markets, is not seeking truth, it's creating a map of a showcase of whoever bought into a particular market's emotions.

It sounds like you're motivated by creating a repo of human feedback reinforcement data which could then be used to further train or fine-tune LLM's, perhaps even to sell, is that correct?

> important for society to accurately define truth in an age when information travels (and changes) faster than ever, and when LLMs so confidently lie and have been heavily prompted to avoid controversial topics.

Yeah, I don't think what you're building is getting at the goal of, "truth," it's getting at the goal of building something sellable per my question above. To the extent that someone will be willing to buy that human feedback database is a function of what they may be trying to accomplish.

Much like in the world of so-called prediction markets, I see several of your markets as being heavily biased toward speculation and feelings, as opposed to a pragmatic approach to predicting a future outcome. What I mean by that is, you could create a really excellent scientific model and way of monitoring under what conditions a dam will break, or you could poll local people around a dam whether they feel like it will break, and you may get wildly different means and variances from the two methods. In all likelihood, there is no extra new synthesized knowledge about empirically what will physically happen with the dam that a group of average people off the street will have about that dam, in the context of a society with functioning infrastructure and tens of thousands of working dams. What you will have is a database on people's emotions about the dam, or perhaps dams in general, or the company behind the dam, etc.

So what are you really doing to, "make the world a better place?" You're not, you're making it worse by selling a vision of, "truth," that is actually muddling certain applications of practical engineering or scientific predictions further.

I think if you instead tweaked your pitch and just honestly stated that it's a repo of groups of people's feelings on various topics (and who those groups are, to the extent that you can figure that out), and not a way to, "beat LLM's with real truth," then it would be a lot more responsible.

On the other hand, you could just be a troll trying to actively muddle the truth further, in which case you can just ignore my advice, that's fine too.

> Inside the marqt maker is a fine-tuned BERT model that roughly ensures the statement is sensical, grammatical, and not a question.

Can BERT conduct logical reasoning? So further to the above, it sounds like you're using an LLM to clean human feedback data, if that's the real crux of your plan, to make reinforcement data cheaper, and everything else is a sort of 4D chess, bravo, cool project!