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/1867600164502089925

(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/2024/11/09/infofinance.html#info-finance-for-distilled-human-judgement . 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.

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/1867600164502089925

(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/2024/11/09/infofinance.html#info-finance-for-distilled-human-judgement . 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/