Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Don't hinge your business success on getting an unlimited number of humans to agree with your AI on an unlimited number of facts.

The universe of facts is infinite.

The larger a user base, the fewer facts they'll collectively agree on.

If you take on a large user base and an infinite knowledge domain, you'll lose trust with users who disagree with your fact checking (rightly or wrongly.)

Instead, give yourself a smaller scope where you can actually win. Train your tool to be a world-class fact checker in a specific domain. Then market to a userbase who explicitly already agree on the facts you check against. This smaller scope sets you up for technical success and builds experience, revenue, and user trust, all of which you can leverage to iterate into another domain more quickly.



Yea ok, eliminating misinformation is what we want to eventually do. But what we can sell is something that eliminates human errors (the backend also allows for that).


I think you could provide good things to Wikipedia with your tool. For instance, I recently read that earth spinning make earth 10^7 kg heavier. While the principle is corrShow HN: I'm 16 and building an AI based startup c... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40222051ect (energy is mass), the source is really weak and it can easily be found that earth mass uncertainty is about 10^20 kg. Which make the whole point useless.

I challenged your AI on this thematic : "a spring weight heavier when compressed", or "earth spinning make it heavier". Both results tell me it's not true despite it being correct (E=mc2).

I admit I'm cherrypicking, because it does say croissant is not French. But can I trust it blindly? That's why you must provide sources. It's valuable to have sources when we talk about truth.

good job anyway, keep working on what you like




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: