franzap on Nostr: While I agree with most of the thread, I wonder how will these attestations ...

While I agree with most of the thread, I wonder how will these attestations (context/score/confidence) be input into the system?

I have a strong intuition people will not bother doing this. UX is everything. So yes, it may be a task delegated to an incentivized curator - which in turn requires trust in them. Which might as well be an LLM that ends up deriving trust based on proxies.

IMO for this to actually work we need users to signal trust in a more progressive fashion. User prompts should be sparse, minimal and appropriate to the context of whatever they're doing in a client, e.g. when fat zapping Lyn Alden user could be prompted to sign an event assigning more weight to Lyn in the topics of the zapped note. A bit more, not a number.

A perhaps extreme, terrible UX example would be: out of the blue, ask me in absolute terms how much I trust Lyn Alden, make me input what things I should trust her on, and the confidence I have on what I just wrote.

Also, humans do not think about trust in percentages and are lazy when the ask is too big relative to an eventual payoff, so will answer things quick and inaccurately just to get done. It's a translation, a degradation in signal, so one could argue that these attestations are also proxies. Better than follows, probably, but also proxies.