←back to thread

Auto-grading decade-old Hacker News discussions with hindsight

(karpathy.bearblog.dev)
615 points __rito__ | 2 comments | 10 Dec 25 17:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.526s | source

Related from yesterday: Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46205632
Show context
modeless ◴[10 Dec 25 19:17 UTC] No.46222213[source]▶
This is a cool idea. I would install a Chrome extension that shows a score by every username on this site grading how well their expressed opinions match what subsequently happened in reality, or the accuracy of any specific predictions they've made. Some people's opinions are closer to reality than others and it's not always correlated with upvotes.

An extension of this would be to grade people on the accuracy of the comments they upvote, and use that to weight their upvotes more in ranking. I would love to read a version of HN where the only upvotes that matter are from people who agree with opinions that turn out to be correct. Of course, only HN could implement this since upvotes are private.

replies(7): >>46222748 #>>46223194 #>>46223649 #>>46224507 #>>46226548 #>>46228558 #>>46229291 #
1. prawn ◴[11 Dec 25 07:13 UTC] No.46228558[source]▶
Didn't Slashdot have something like the second point with their meta-moderation, many many years ago?
replies(1): >>46236415 #
2. ssl-3 ◴[11 Dec 25 20:05 UTC] No.46236415[source]▶
Sorta.

IIRC, when comment moderation and scoring came to Slashdot, only a random (and changing) selection of users were able to moderate.

Meta-moderation came a bit later. It allowed people to review prior moderation actions and evaluate the worth of those actions.

Those users who made good moderations were more likely to become a mod again in the future than those who made bad moderations.

The meta-mods had no idea whose actions they were evaluating, and previous/potential mods had no idea what their score was. That anonymity helped keep it honest and harder to game.