評(píng)論
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?
讓我們倒回去一點(diǎn)，我們問(wèn)了自己一個(gè)問(wèn)題：我們是否能測(cè)量對(duì)話的質(zhì)量？而對(duì)質(zhì)量的定義又是什么？
And in the same way that you have indicators and we have indicators as humans in terms of are we healthy or not,
就像你我作為人類會(huì)有顯示我們健不健康的指標(biāo)，
such as temperature, the flushness of your face, we believe that we could find the indicators of conversational health.
比如說(shuō)體溫，臉上的紅暈，我們相信我們能夠找到反應(yīng)談話健康程度的指標(biāo)。
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.
我們與麻省理工學(xué)院的一個(gè)名叫匡提科的實(shí)驗(yàn)室合作，提出了四項(xiàng)指標(biāo)，我們認(rèn)為最終可以運(yùn)用在系統(tǒng)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.
第一項(xiàng)指標(biāo)叫作共同關(guān)注。這個(gè)指標(biāo)用于測(cè)量對(duì)話中人們多大程度集中于同一個(gè)話題，還是不同的話題。
The second one is called shared reality, and this is what percentage of the conversation shares the same facts
第二個(gè)指標(biāo)叫作共同現(xiàn)實(shí)。這個(gè)指標(biāo)用于測(cè)量這段對(duì)話有多少部分是基于共同事實(shí)的
not whether those facts are truthful or not, but are we sharing the same facts as we converse?
不是指這些事實(shí)真實(shí)與否，而是我們認(rèn)為的事實(shí)是否相同？
The third is receptivity: How much of the conversation is receptive or civil or the inverse, toxic?
第三個(gè)指標(biāo)是感受性：一段對(duì)話在多大程度上是溫和，讓人容易接受的，亦或者是完全相反，會(huì)使人不快呢？
And then the fourth is variety of perspective. So, are we seeing filter bubbles or echo chambers,
第四個(gè)指標(biāo)是觀點(diǎn)多樣性。我們所接收的信息是否被篩選過(guò)，人云亦云，
or are we actually getting a variety of opinions within the conversation?
又或者是我們能在談話中接收到許多不同的觀點(diǎn)呢？
