5 ms·

For software based AI to be successful at what it does, it must compete. If it does not compete well, it will suck, and the government will suck just as bad. Go

For software based AI to be successful at what it does, it must compete. If it does not compete well, it will suck, and the government will suck just as bad. Government, at least the way we've been thinking about it thus far, will have to change for AI to be good at it.

CuriouslyC 10y ago
Competition isn't necessary. In fact, competition is really just an instance of optimizing an objective function that is defined in terms of "relative advantage". If the objective function is some measure of citizen well-being AI would be just as successful.
- kordless 10y ago
  Government is governance of a society, which itself is alive and completely dynamic. Our idea of "well being" is constantly changing and growing. Unless the AI decides contrary, of course.
  - jqm 10y ago
    Maybe not all governance is possible by algorithm but much of it is. For instance, where do we widen a road? Absolutely an algorithmic problem. But I suspect sometimes these types of decisions have more to do with contributions, political favors, relations, etc. Solving even part of this type of friction in society would go a long way toward improving life for the general population. Bring on the A.I. I'd rather be governed by a machine than a party boss and a lobbyist any day.
    - nsxwolf 10y ago
      Where to widen a road ceases to be an algorithmic problem when the algorithm decides to widen it into a neighborhood's front yards, and the homeowners take issue with that. It then becomes a political problem which AI is no better at solving than humans.
    - narrator 10y ago
      There are often hidden agendas in politics. The inscrutability of neural networks and these hidden agendas will make for interesting interactions.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      >For instance, where do we widen a road? Absolutely an algorithmic problem. Not to the people living on either side of it who stand to lose their homes. "Computer says yes" would be a political nightmare. As long as you have people making the decisions you can have the comforting illusion that it may be possible to make them change their minds. Replace the people with an AI and the comforting illusion disappears. You'll have people taking to the streets with pitchforks to protest against tyranny in no time - even if the AI is much better at making intelligent decisions.
      - jqm 10y ago
        So if we don't widen roads because people might have to move then we get more accidents. Or the city can't grow. Or people sit in traffic for extra hours a day. People's needs need to be taken into account, yes, that is what it is all about in the end. But a few people's inconvenience or greed outweighing the general progress is not a long term formula for successful society.
        daveguy 10y ago
        That sounds like an awesome premise to a dystopian science fiction novel.
        jqm 10y ago
        The point is we already live in that dystopian future. But it isn't machines running things. It's people fighting over scraps. I firmly believe the machines will do better.
      - kordless 10y ago
        So you understand what is coming, on some level. The question for us is how to best handle the transition.
  - visarga 10y ago
    > Our idea of "well being" is constantly changing and growing In the meantime we still have the same basic needs. This is an attempt to map out what they are: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs
  - sneak 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
    - kordless 10y ago
      You are preaching the choir here. :) I ascribe to a global consciousness that we are not quite aware of, yet we exist inside of as symbiant guests. If it becomes conscious on a human level, I would well imagine it would advise us with Wisdom as opposed to dictating behavior. The reason why I believe this is complicated, but it's based on the assumption that Aesthetic is somehow tied to discrimination (security) and thus can't be forced upon reality without affecting quality.
SapphireSun 10y ago
For a software based AI to be successful, it must be good at convincing people to go along with it and balancing sometimes paradoxical concerns from the public. I think efficiency is the least of its worries.
- kordless 10y ago
  Things only appear to be paradoxical to humans. We're subject to being double bound by those with dissonance. Arguing for legislation that expects to eliminate all of X because X causes suffering is illogical, but it's easy to sell if you can put people in a double bind and keep them from being against the legislation that feeds your family. Software locks up when you double bind it, and thus uses more energy than a human would. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, of course.
- taneq 10y ago
  I think that if given a chance, current AI would be terrifyingly effective at maximizing public support while minimizing accountability. It seems like the sort of big-data problem that's a perfect fit for modern machine learning methods.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    I was just talking to a friend about this. RNNs are rather brilliant in their infancy. Imagine when they grow up.
Tsagadai 10y ago
Competition is unnecessarily burdensome. It just has to converge in less than polynomial time.

CuriouslyC 10y ago

Competition isn't necessary. In fact, competition is really just an instance of optimizing an objective function that is defined in terms of "relative advantage". If the objective function is some measure of citizen well-being AI would be just as successful.

kordless 10y ago
Government is governance of a society, which itself is alive and completely dynamic. Our idea of "well being" is constantly changing and growing. Unless the AI decides contrary, of course.
- jqm 10y ago
  Maybe not all governance is possible by algorithm but much of it is. For instance, where do we widen a road? Absolutely an algorithmic problem. But I suspect sometimes these types of decisions have more to do with contributions, political favors, relations, etc. Solving even part of this type of friction in society would go a long way toward improving life for the general population. Bring on the A.I. I'd rather be governed by a machine than a party boss and a lobbyist any day.
  - nsxwolf 10y ago
    Where to widen a road ceases to be an algorithmic problem when the algorithm decides to widen it into a neighborhood's front yards, and the homeowners take issue with that. It then becomes a political problem which AI is no better at solving than humans.
  - narrator 10y ago
    There are often hidden agendas in politics. The inscrutability of neural networks and these hidden agendas will make for interesting interactions.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    >For instance, where do we widen a road? Absolutely an algorithmic problem. Not to the people living on either side of it who stand to lose their homes. "Computer says yes" would be a political nightmare. As long as you have people making the decisions you can have the comforting illusion that it may be possible to make them change their minds. Replace the people with an AI and the comforting illusion disappears. You'll have people taking to the streets with pitchforks to protest against tyranny in no time - even if the AI is much better at making intelligent decisions.
    - jqm 10y ago
      So if we don't widen roads because people might have to move then we get more accidents. Or the city can't grow. Or people sit in traffic for extra hours a day. People's needs need to be taken into account, yes, that is what it is all about in the end. But a few people's inconvenience or greed outweighing the general progress is not a long term formula for successful society.
      - daveguy 10y ago
        That sounds like an awesome premise to a dystopian science fiction novel.
        jqm 10y ago
        The point is we already live in that dystopian future. But it isn't machines running things. It's people fighting over scraps. I firmly believe the machines will do better.
    - kordless 10y ago
      So you understand what is coming, on some level. The question for us is how to best handle the transition.
- visarga 10y ago
  > Our idea of "well being" is constantly changing and growing In the meantime we still have the same basic needs. This is an attempt to map out what they are: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs
- sneak 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project
  - kordless 10y ago
    You are preaching the choir here. :) I ascribe to a global consciousness that we are not quite aware of, yet we exist inside of as symbiant guests. If it becomes conscious on a human level, I would well imagine it would advise us with Wisdom as opposed to dictating behavior. The reason why I believe this is complicated, but it's based on the assumption that Aesthetic is somehow tied to discrimination (security) and thus can't be forced upon reality without affecting quality.

SapphireSun 10y ago

For a software based AI to be successful, it must be good at convincing people to go along with it and balancing sometimes paradoxical concerns from the public. I think efficiency is the least of its worries.

kordless 10y ago
Things only appear to be paradoxical to humans. We're subject to being double bound by those with dissonance. Arguing for legislation that expects to eliminate all of X because X causes suffering is illogical, but it's easy to sell if you can put people in a double bind and keep them from being against the legislation that feeds your family. Software locks up when you double bind it, and thus uses more energy than a human would. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, of course.
taneq 10y ago
I think that if given a chance, current AI would be terrifyingly effective at maximizing public support while minimizing accountability. It seems like the sort of big-data problem that's a perfect fit for modern machine learning methods.
- themartorana 10y ago
  I was just talking to a friend about this. RNNs are rather brilliant in their infancy. Imagine when they grow up.

Tsagadai 10y ago

Competition is unnecessarily burdensome. It just has to converge in less than polynomial time.