4 ms·
Unlike in business, the question in politics and policy is not primarily efficiency and profit, but justice (including liberty and democracy) and human welfare.
by forapurpose 9y ago
Unlike in business, the question in politics and policy is not primarily efficiency and profit, but justice (including liberty and democracy) and human welfare. The relationship between automation and efficiency & profit is relatively clear, but the relationship between automation and justice & welfare is not. I think the questions are:
1. Automation can reduce transparency, by moving open discussions and reasoning into obscure, sometimes proprietary computer code. Effectively, the person writing the code, or the person who controls the coder, decides the policy. For example, some courts now use software to determine prison sentences; what was once decided based on established principles and transparently detailed by the judge is now decided in some cubicals by developers and written in C (which is often prioprietary). Why are you going to jail? The software (i.e., the developer) said so. Also, remember that code is mysterious and obscure to most people outside HN; they have no understanding of what it is, of its significance, what it can do, etc. Many can't define the word "algorithm" or even "web browser"; even open source code provides no transparency for them (and doesn't for us, unless someone makes the extraordinary effort to review the code).
2. To whom will automation shift power? The lobbyists with the best algorithm? The people developing the technology and solutions (see #1)? Will automation democratize power or further restrict it? Note that the developers of one solution in the article went to Harvard. Sounds to me like the same people running Washington, and the same gateways to power.
3. Lobbyists who have more data about constituents in general and about major players in particular will have an advantage. It could increase competition to erode privacy in its most important context - politics.
4. Will it result in better policy - more justice and better welfare - or just more power for the few with the data and algorithms?
If I were devious and wanted to change judicial policy nationwide, for example, I'd buy the companies making software for courts. I'd be surprised if I was the first to think of that.
- noobermin 9y agoThe entire thing is that those who want this sort of thing are not interested in justice and welfare, they see politics as a way to enrich themselves.
- forapurpose 9y agoI think that's always the major issue in politics. IMHO: It's an issue of individuals: People are neither completely altruistic nor completely greedy. A very important factor is, where are the elite on that continuum? My humble hypothesis is that that's the main difference between a banana republic and first-world civilization and society. IMHO, the elite in the U.S. have swung far toward greed; the tax bill is a good example: There is no policy reason for it, not even a figleaf discussion of economics, and even the principles of conservatives (deficit reduction) are thrown by the wayside: They just want more money. It's also an issue of systems: How do we design a system that marries power, on one hand, to justice and welfare on the other? Then those who seek power also seek justice & welfare, intentionally or not. Democracy is an (incomplete) solution to that problem: Power flows from making the people happy. Despite the problems, the U.S. and other major democracies work and have worked for generations, and they work better than any other system of government. Somehow, I'm not sure how, that happens.
- jjawssd 9y ago> Automation can reduce transparency, by moving open discussions and reasoning into obscure, sometimes proprietary computer code. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
- rock_hard 9y agoWhat if the code is the law? So instead of writing laws in lawyer speak that nobody can understand anyways they would be written in C! Lawmakers would essentially become the programmers
- kelnos 9y agoCouldn't agree more. And aside from your points, I've been programming long enough to know I never want the fate of society decided by software. We're just not good enough at programming yet. Our tools are imprecise, our discipline is not rigorous, and we prioritize features and speed over correctness. I hold no illusions that we'd approach government automation with even the rigor that the space shuttle software was afforded. Heh, thinking more about "speed over correctness": we can't even get that right with people making the decision. Consider the secretive, rushed GOP tax bill that just passed...
- bonesss 9y ago> I hold no illusions that we'd approach government automation with even the rigor that the space shuttle software was afforded. I can't see any reason why my an application for a spot in school should have anything like the rigor afforded to 99% of government automation is of the "handle the easy stuff and dump the hard stuff to the operator to use their big fat brain" variety. In theory, well factored systems and machine learning should let more and more of that over to machines happily :)
- forapurpose 9y ago> 99% of government automation is of the "handle the easy stuff and dump the hard stuff to the operator to use their big fat brain" variety Is that based on experience in the industry? I think as politicos realize the power in controlling the software, they will use it as another way to exercise control outside the public eye.
- bonesss 9y agoYeah, industry and gov :) The vast majority of dialog between governments and citizens is kinda boring with occasional exception handling. Think tax handling... The exceptions are demanding, and require expertise, and looots of time, but most other things get 'rubber stamped'. Politicos get lots of control through the tax code and supplier agreements. Software will just make them better at it ;)
- 9y ago