3 ms·

logical conclusion will be to skip political representation and go directly to policy. Interesting experiment, look forward to seeing more, as we definitely nee

logical conclusion will be to skip political representation and go directly to policy. Interesting experiment, look forward to seeing more, as we definitely need to upgrade our political O/S

mtgx 4y ago
parminya 4y ago
If you skip representation, you don't know what you're optimising for. If you include representation, then you will not exclude groups you didn't know existed in the process (or even groups who are generated by AI's policy development process). Skipping representation would be an awful, authoritarian distopia.
Barrin92 4y ago
skipping representation gets you a 'limbic-cracy', from the lizard part of your brain directly into action. Skipping representation means skipping reason, you're just building the world's largest pleasure machine basically. You'd get for politics what Twitter is for communication. That's not an upgrade to the political O/S, it'd be eliminating what politics actually is. Going from your brain directly to utopia managed by an AI is the Matrix.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  like limbic-crazy - great term ;-) this is a good argument against AI direct democracy, but I think it relies on the presumption that political representatives provide a moderating function on the lizard brain. Seems to me that they actually amplify it, just look at political campaign promise, it's all promise no real talk. Perhaps there is a way to program in hangovers, so that lizards and the AI can learn together what is a good or bad idea, from feedback. In time, we might even be able to model this and accurately predict what a good or bad idea might be
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  I wonder if social media has actually moved our political system closer to a direct democracy than it used to be. Instead of representatives debating amongst themselves to decide what to do about any particular issue, the debate (if you can call it that) happens on social media and the representatives then get immediate feedback about what the popular position is on "their side". Any deviation from that position is then met with immediate negative feedback from those same social hive minds, creating a disincentive for representatives to think for themselves. I'm not convinced this is an entirely new phenomenon, but perhaps it's been amplified in recent years?

logical conclusion will be to skip political representation and go directly to policy. Interesting experiment, look forward to seeing more, as we definitely need to upgrade our political O/S

mtgx 4y ago

parminya 4y ago

If you skip representation, you don't know what you're optimising for. If you include representation, then you will not exclude groups you didn't know existed in the process (or even groups who are generated by AI's policy development process). Skipping representation would be an awful, authoritarian distopia.

Barrin92 4y ago

skipping representation gets you a 'limbic-cracy', from the lizard part of your brain directly into action. Skipping representation means skipping reason, you're just building the world's largest pleasure machine basically. You'd get for politics what Twitter is for communication. That's not an upgrade to the political O/S, it'd be eliminating what politics actually is. Going from your brain directly to utopia managed by an AI is the Matrix.

hunglee2 4y ago
like limbic-crazy - great term ;-) this is a good argument against AI direct democracy, but I think it relies on the presumption that political representatives provide a moderating function on the lizard brain. Seems to me that they actually amplify it, just look at political campaign promise, it's all promise no real talk. Perhaps there is a way to program in hangovers, so that lizards and the AI can learn together what is a good or bad idea, from feedback. In time, we might even be able to model this and accurately predict what a good or bad idea might be
Ajedi32 4y ago
I wonder if social media has actually moved our political system closer to a direct democracy than it used to be. Instead of representatives debating amongst themselves to decide what to do about any particular issue, the debate (if you can call it that) happens on social media and the representatives then get immediate feedback about what the popular position is on "their side". Any deviation from that position is then met with immediate negative feedback from those same social hive minds, creating a disincentive for representatives to think for themselves. I'm not convinced this is an entirely new phenomenon, but perhaps it's been amplified in recent years?