评论
打印
Just to back up a bit, we asked ourselves a question: Can we actually measure the health of a conversation, and what does that mean?
让我们倒回去一点，我们问了自己一个问题：我们是否能测量对话的质量？而对质量的定义又是什么？
And in the same way that you have indicators and we have indicators as humans in terms of are we healthy or not,
就像你我作为人类会有显示我们健不健康的指标，
such as temperature, the flushness of your face, we believe that we could find the indicators of conversational health.
比如说体温，脸上的红晕，我们相信我们能够找到反应谈话健康程度的指标。
And we worked with a lab called Cortico at MIT to propose four starter indicators that we believe we could ultimately measure on the system.
我们与麻省理工学院的一个名叫匡提科的实验室合作，提出了四项指标，我们认为最终可以运用在系统上。
And the first one is what we're calling shared attention. It's a measure of how much of the conversation is attentive on the same topic versus disparate.
第一项指标叫作共同关注。这个指标用于测量对话中人们多大程度集中于同一个话题，还是不同的话题。
The second one is called shared reality, and this is what percentage of the conversation shares the same facts
第二个指标叫作共同现实。这个指标用于测量这段对话有多少部分是基于共同事实的
not whether those facts are truthful or not, but are we sharing the same facts as we converse?
不是指这些事实真实与否，而是我们认为的事实是否相同？
The third is receptivity: How much of the conversation is receptive or civil or the inverse, toxic?
第三个指标是感受性：一段对话在多大程度上是温和，让人容易接受的，亦或者是完全相反，会使人不快呢？
And then the fourth is variety of perspective. So, are we seeing filter bubbles or echo chambers,
第四个指标是观点多样性。我们所接收的信息是否被筛选过，人云亦云，
or are we actually getting a variety of opinions within the conversation?
又或者是我们能在谈话中接收到许多不同的观点呢？
