Ok the binary evaluation makes sense to me. Deutsch explains why digital is necessary for error correction so that tracks.
But I keep getting stuck on one step. In your Yes or No Philosophy article you wrote:
Additionally, I used my judgment to look at the key issues. I found this idea has no decisive flaws. Everything bad about it is a matter of degree like costing a bit more in some area or taking a bit longer for some parts. There’s no non-optional part with a fundamental flaw.
The binary framework tells you what form the output should take (like a boolean pass/fail instead of a float score). But the step that actually does the computation is I used my judgment to look at the key issues. That seems like the hard part where the actual evaluation happens.
I read your intuition articles and it makes sense that intuition does a lot of background processing. but my question is about the reliability of that judgment step. How do you know the judgment isn’t just running on biases? Does CF have a mechanism that makes the judgment step itself more reliable, or is CF mostly a system for organizing the judgments you’ve already made intuitively?
For an AGI the binary output format is easy to implement. Coding the judgment part looks like the bottleneck to me.