6 ms·

I agree it has to be a democracy. The right points to harms of government overreach to argue for less government. The left points to exploding inequality and ar

by yedava 9y ago

I agree it has to be a democracy. The right points to harms of government overreach to argue for less government. The left points to exploding inequality and argues for more government in order to tackle it. A good faith assumption could be that both are trying to decentralize power and maybe putting it that way will make it easier to reach across the ideological divide.

randcraw 9y ago
I think there's an increasingly compelling argument to be made at this moment in history, with the rise of powerful increasingly intelligent software that can 1) rigorously shape policy to ensure that ends are met and that 2) the means to those ends employ minimal bias, and 3) do so adaptively, shifting policy dynamically as circumstances evolve. I believe it's time to start planning for the day when we shutter the voting booths and find a better way to govern using networked sensors and dispassionate computers. Democracy is dying. Long live automatic government for the people. Is this really necessary? IMHO, yes. It's become clear that the easy manipulation of a gullible, clueless, and intellectually lazy electorate has broken all three branches of US government: 1) we have an imbecile President and a cabinet of grotesques who border on insanity 2) we have a congress that for over 30 years has done almost nothing constructive, that campaigns on one set of principles then serves others, the primary two being: the financial interests of Those With Money, and paying lip service to the fantasy-laden desiderata of Those Without. 3) a legal system that imprisons over 90% of those charged without a trial. What brought America to such a dysfunctional State? The democratic popular vote, of course. Nothing else could. Thus I believe it's time there was a serious discussion (outside of Washington, of course) about alternative ways to shrink and de-bias all three branches of government, at all levels. I'm convinced that software soon will be powerful enough to fairly, effectively, and adaptively guide the players (both citizens and businesses) in questions of policy to reliably and precisely achieve desired ends, rather than relying on the venerably bent tools of power -- a gigantic incoherent mass of self-serving, ends-oblivious, and inconsistent principles chisled into marble long ago by power brokers to preserve eon-old biases that reliably serves only vested interests. If we want AI to reach its true potential, I propose better government be its ultimate objective. Start from the bottom up -- local government -- and introduce ends-driven smart services to serve civic and main street business needs at that level -- where feedback is clearest, most immediate, and most accountable. This way we might just put government right, from the bottom up, cutting away Caesar as we go.
- buerkle 9y ago
  Democratic popular vote did not lead to a dysfunctional state. The lack of democratic vote has led to the problem. We have two entrenched parties because of our winner take all system, gerrymandering designed to take away voter rights, laws restricting rights to vote, and vast media conglomerates.
  - RMGgondella 9y ago
    Back at the dawn of the US, the one with the most votes became President; the next became Vice President. This was a good idea, as it would at the very least encourage some bipartisan discussion. Perhaps the VP would be found more often on Capitol Hill, in the role of President of the Senate.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I agree with your analysis of the problem. However, I deeply distrust your solution. Two problems: One, do we really get unbiased software? Or do we get software that's claimed to be unbiased, but has actually been quietly biased according to the authors' prejudices (and all attempts to criticize it get shot down because "it's really unbiased, so the problem is with you")? Or do we really get a good-faith attempt to write unbiased software, that winds up biased in ways and for reasons that we don't understand? Second, how are you going to make this happen? It's going to involve taking power away from the existing powers-that-be. And you don't sound like you're going to do it by democratic means, since you see democracy as broken. How do you propose to do it? ("Bottom up" isn't enough of a plan. At each step, it's going to be a war against entrenched interests. How are you going to win?)
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I'm not worried that much about software bias - I feel that a lot of good could be achieved with software clear enough for all sides to accept it represents their interest in an ok-ish way. What I'm worried about is this: technology has always been a force multiplier for those who wield it. For now it's us (maybe in the future it will be a superintelligent AI, maybe not). Even if we manage to write a pretty unbiased governing software, how are we going to ensure that it isn't subtly manipulated by some interested party? And can we ensure that while also making the system extensible, so that it can cope with the demands caused by the impact of ever-progressing technology on our societies? It seems to me that the two goals - a system above humans and a system that can evolve with us - are fundamentally incompatible.
RMGgondella 9y ago
Wow. Mind blown. Thanks for this angle that I had not considered!

by yedava 9y ago

randcraw 9y ago

I think there's an increasingly compelling argument to be made at this moment in history, with the rise of powerful increasingly intelligent software that can 1) rigorously shape policy to ensure that ends are met and that 2) the means to those ends employ minimal bias, and 3) do so adaptively, shifting policy dynamically as circumstances evolve. I believe it's time to start planning for the day when we shutter the voting booths and find a better way to govern using networked sensors and dispassionate computers. Democracy is dying. Long live automatic government for the people. Is this really necessary? IMHO, yes. It's become clear that the easy manipulation of a gullible, clueless, and intellectually lazy electorate has broken all three branches of US government: 1) we have an imbecile President and a cabinet of grotesques who border on insanity 2) we have a congress that for over 30 years has done almost nothing constructive, that campaigns on one set of principles then serves others, the primary two being: the financial interests of Those With Money, and paying lip service to the fantasy-laden desiderata of Those Without. 3) a legal system that imprisons over 90% of those charged without a trial. What brought America to such a dysfunctional State? The democratic popular vote, of course. Nothing else could. Thus I believe it's time there was a serious discussion (outside of Washington, of course) about alternative ways to shrink and de-bias all three branches of government, at all levels. I'm convinced that software soon will be powerful enough to fairly, effectively, and adaptively guide the players (both citizens and businesses) in questions of policy to reliably and precisely achieve desired ends, rather than relying on the venerably bent tools of power -- a gigantic incoherent mass of self-serving, ends-oblivious, and inconsistent principles chisled into marble long ago by power brokers to preserve eon-old biases that reliably serves only vested interests. If we want AI to reach its true potential, I propose better government be its ultimate objective. Start from the bottom up -- local government -- and introduce ends-driven smart services to serve civic and main street business needs at that level -- where feedback is clearest, most immediate, and most accountable. This way we might just put government right, from the bottom up, cutting away Caesar as we go.

buerkle 9y ago
Democratic popular vote did not lead to a dysfunctional state. The lack of democratic vote has led to the problem. We have two entrenched parties because of our winner take all system, gerrymandering designed to take away voter rights, laws restricting rights to vote, and vast media conglomerates.
- RMGgondella 9y ago
  Back at the dawn of the US, the one with the most votes became President; the next became Vice President. This was a good idea, as it would at the very least encourage some bipartisan discussion. Perhaps the VP would be found more often on Capitol Hill, in the role of President of the Senate.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I agree with your analysis of the problem. However, I deeply distrust your solution. Two problems: One, do we really get unbiased software? Or do we get software that's claimed to be unbiased, but has actually been quietly biased according to the authors' prejudices (and all attempts to criticize it get shot down because "it's really unbiased, so the problem is with you")? Or do we really get a good-faith attempt to write unbiased software, that winds up biased in ways and for reasons that we don't understand? Second, how are you going to make this happen? It's going to involve taking power away from the existing powers-that-be. And you don't sound like you're going to do it by democratic means, since you see democracy as broken. How do you propose to do it? ("Bottom up" isn't enough of a plan. At each step, it's going to be a war against entrenched interests. How are you going to win?)
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I'm not worried that much about software bias - I feel that a lot of good could be achieved with software clear enough for all sides to accept it represents their interest in an ok-ish way. What I'm worried about is this: technology has always been a force multiplier for those who wield it. For now it's us (maybe in the future it will be a superintelligent AI, maybe not). Even if we manage to write a pretty unbiased governing software, how are we going to ensure that it isn't subtly manipulated by some interested party? And can we ensure that while also making the system extensible, so that it can cope with the demands caused by the impact of ever-progressing technology on our societies? It seems to me that the two goals - a system above humans and a system that can evolve with us - are fundamentally incompatible.

RMGgondella 9y ago

Wow. Mind blown. Thanks for this angle that I had not considered!