Looking forward to this, and in general I have been continuously heartened by Canada's ongoing interest in the govtech sector.

Sometimes we want to see/hear different points of view on the questions we have - personal, professional, or on current affairs. 👥 The @SocietyLibrary team made this little tool to see multiple views at the press of a button. We call it "Perspectives." Let us know if you want us to keep it around! 🔽 Another sweet byproduct of our civilization-scale mapping work! 🗺️

Political matters are complex. We need to build tools to make it easier to search for truth at the civilization-scale. Check out the @SocietyLibrary Papers interface, which nests a dynamic wiki page for every sentence in an interactive briefing document.

Grateful for the invite, can't wait!

It is not infrequent that I have to try and reframe people's misperceptions of why we use debate maps at the @SocietyLibrary. It's not because we want to make these maps 'a thing.' It's because 'debate-checking' is the logical end of 'fact-checking.' If you are 'proving' one fact/premise/argument at a time, it's essentially cherry-picking. If you are searching for truth, it needs to be conducted in a manner that's maximizing the context of the inquiry space, so relevant arguments, counterarguments, evidence, etc. can be assessed holistically. Once you have done the work of debate mapping, it's very easy to see how one piece of knowledge can completely change the likely veracity and relevance of another piece of knowledge. If we're sincerely truth-seeking, we need to be as maximalist as possible. Below is an example of just three layers of a debate map unpacked: it contains thousands of deduplicated, relevant points to consider on a nuclear policy issue. We made this by hand, and now we're automating with AI - which I think is going to be necessary if we want to be context maximalists.

✍️This one has some references, too (really, just the beginning). This question was inspired from @OpenAI's Democratic Inputs to AI Governance Challenge.