I want to fine-tune AIs on my own decision-making in an auditable way where I can review their decisions and course correct their decision-making when they get it wrong.

Where I don't need to read every letter I receive in the mail, and every text message delivered to my phone. I want to fine-tune AIs that can make approximately the same decisions I would about what is worth spending my time on, and what can safely be sent to the rubbish bin.

I want an army of executive assistants, an org chart of AIs, working on managing my information on my behalf in a way that is aligned with me.

I do not want a neutral aggregator.

I want a biased aggregator whose bias is intentionally aligned with my own. An aggregator who is accountable and aligned only with me, not a 3rd party who happens to run the servers my communication is flowing through.

I don't think this is a novel desire. Secretaries and executive assistants have existed for a long time, and have filled this role. But I can't afford to pay someone a livable wage to sort through my email for me.

I'd be happy with a site like HN where thoughtful people gather to share what they know, to both provide and consume information and insight, to amplify our collective understanding and capability.

A site that is self-moderated by the community to suppress spam and trolls while surfacing quality material.

And a site where there are consequences when community members abuse their moderation privileges by downranking and flagging legitimate ideas, submitted in good faith, that is neither spam nor troll.

Right, the myth of the neutral aggregator.

The aggregator is going to generally have some opinion on it, whether it be your own opinion fed back to you, or those of the author.

Whether that opinion is "right" or "wrong" is in the eye of beholder..

In some ways the recommendation engines feeding you your own preferences is the easiest thing to implement that satisfies the most people at once.