2 ms·

Congress would not be the first place I'd implement such a thing. I'd start with automated forum moderators and then maybe move on from there once they prove th

by Retra 11y ago

Congress would not be the first place I'd implement such a thing. I'd start with automated forum moderators and then maybe move on from there once they prove themselves better than humans. Maybe a small civil court handling parking tickets. Let's not assume too much, here.

dragontamer 11y ago
So you'd want AIs to write the law too? So you would have AIs not only writing the laws, but interpreting them. And you're not worried about conflicts of interest one bit? What happens when the AIs write a law stating that only AIs can have jobs? Or if an AI writes a law that says "kill all humans" ? The law needs to be written by somebody. And Congress... despite all of its faults... is the best organization we know of at writing laws. You're ignoring literally centuries of political theory btw. This is one of the most studied subjects in America right now. I would suggest reading "Roberts Rules of Order" for the base mechanism of how meetings are run and how to organize a group to make a decision. The vast vast vast majority of Congressional decisions and Judicial decisions take place as rigorously as code. Its not the "interpretation" of law where mistakes are made... most commonly, it is the writing of law which causes controversy. In any case, even the writing of laws is extremely algorithmic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert's_Rules_of_Order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert's_Rules_of_Order Robert's Rules of Order don't necessarily match up with the Senate's rules or the House's rules... but the concepts are very similar. (In particular, there is a time limit to debate in the House, while there isn't one in the Senate. Both differ from Robert's Rules where individuals are only allowed to speak twice per meeting). Regardless, Parlamentary Theory is extremely codified. And if you listen to CSpan for just 5 minutes, you'll notice that Congress (Specificall the House) talks in a very algorithmic manner. (Individual Representatives reserving time down to the _minute_ to talk about their arguments).
- Retra 11y ago
  I'm not ignoring anything, you're just wildly jumping to conclusions.

by Retra 11y ago

dragontamer 11y ago

So you'd want AIs to write the law too? So you would have AIs not only writing the laws, but interpreting them. And you're not worried about conflicts of interest one bit? What happens when the AIs write a law stating that only AIs can have jobs? Or if an AI writes a law that says "kill all humans" ? The law needs to be written by somebody. And Congress... despite all of its faults... is the best organization we know of at writing laws. You're ignoring literally centuries of political theory btw. This is one of the most studied subjects in America right now. I would suggest reading "Roberts Rules of Order" for the base mechanism of how meetings are run and how to organize a group to make a decision. The vast vast vast majority of Congressional decisions and Judicial decisions take place as rigorously as code. Its not the "interpretation" of law where mistakes are made... most commonly, it is the writing of law which causes controversy. In any case, even the writing of laws is extremely algorithmic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert's_Rules_of_Order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert's_Rules_of_Order Robert's Rules of Order don't necessarily match up with the Senate's rules or the House's rules... but the concepts are very similar. (In particular, there is a time limit to debate in the House, while there isn't one in the Senate. Both differ from Robert's Rules where individuals are only allowed to speak twice per meeting). Regardless, Parlamentary Theory is extremely codified. And if you listen to CSpan for just 5 minutes, you'll notice that Congress (Specificall the House) talks in a very algorithmic manner. (Individual Representatives reserving time down to the _minute_ to talk about their arguments).

Retra 11y ago
I'm not ignoring anything, you're just wildly jumping to conclusions.