You're solving for trust rather than "truth". Of course, there may be no truth, hence GP's:
> > Perhaps truth was always an illusion
But my interpretation of what they meant by "very concept of truth" is something like "consensus reality;" where the vast majority of people trust something is true. A network of trust is fragmented bubbles of distinct truths.
> What would be wrong with this system?
For starters, I don't know that it's a priori better than the current fragmented bubbles of distinct truths we have. Are more fragmented bubbles better? For some populations or people, maybe; for society? It's less clear.
But I think the real thing wrong with web of trust systems is that the value is tied up in network effects and you have to solve for adoption.
---
I say that as someone who generally thinks this is a useful way of approaching the problem of trust. I've brainstormed building this too many times to count. :)
> > Perhaps truth was always an illusion
But my interpretation of what they meant by "very concept of truth" is something like "consensus reality;" where the vast majority of people trust something is true. A network of trust is fragmented bubbles of distinct truths.
> What would be wrong with this system?
For starters, I don't know that it's a priori better than the current fragmented bubbles of distinct truths we have. Are more fragmented bubbles better? For some populations or people, maybe; for society? It's less clear.
But I think the real thing wrong with web of trust systems is that the value is tied up in network effects and you have to solve for adoption.
---
I say that as someone who generally thinks this is a useful way of approaching the problem of trust. I've brainstormed building this too many times to count. :)