4 ms·

That didn’t answer my question. What systems have you looked at? Saying “all systems” is such a sweeping statement, it is very unlikely to be true. Technology

by EGreg 2y ago

That didn’t answer my question. What systems have you looked at? Saying “all systems” is such a sweeping statement, it is very unlikely to be true. Technology always improves and if you looked at any modern system, people some day in the past would be incredulous that it could possibly replace a bunch of smart humans with pen and paper. Experts said airplanes couldn’t ever fly and the wright brothers were fools. Then they said there are many safety problems with airplanes. If you told someone it would be the safest form of travel for long distances, people would laugh. Just as you are laughing now. They would claim their logic would hold for “all” forms of air transportation. People laughed that a chess playing program could beat a human, citing seemingly (to them) insurmountable challenges much as you do now. You could have said exactly 1,2,3 about the Internet and many other things in the past.

Biganon 2y ago
You're missing their point. It's not that it cannot be done. It's that even if you do it perfectly (whatever that means), you cannot expect people to trust it. People trust papers in envelopes in transparent boxes in classrooms all around the country because it's intrinsically trustable, decentralised, easy to understand, extremely hard to manipulate at a global scale, etc. People do not trust an electronic system. You can explain to them that it's safe until you're red in the face, it's not the point. Democracy works if people have sufficient trust in it.
- EGreg 2y ago
  No, I'm not missing their point. The same exact things could have been said about the Internet. Their points 1, 2, 3 applied to the Internet. And even if the Internet could be implemented perfectly (whatever that means), you cannot expect people to trust it. And yet they do. People trust the Internet far more than they trust regular mail, for instance. But that wasn't always the case. It just kept getting better and adding error correction until it became far more reliable than manual systems. People come to trust technology when it starts performing well. The same can be said about self-driving cars etc. etc.

by EGreg 2y ago

Biganon 2y ago

You're missing their point. It's not that it cannot be done. It's that even if you do it perfectly (whatever that means), you cannot expect people to trust it. People trust papers in envelopes in transparent boxes in classrooms all around the country because it's intrinsically trustable, decentralised, easy to understand, extremely hard to manipulate at a global scale, etc. People do not trust an electronic system. You can explain to them that it's safe until you're red in the face, it's not the point. Democracy works if people have sufficient trust in it.

EGreg 2y ago
No, I'm not missing their point. The same exact things could have been said about the Internet. Their points 1, 2, 3 applied to the Internet. And even if the Internet could be implemented perfectly (whatever that means), you cannot expect people to trust it. And yet they do. People trust the Internet far more than they trust regular mail, for instance. But that wasn't always the case. It just kept getting better and adding error correction until it became far more reliable than manual systems. People come to trust technology when it starts performing well. The same can be said about self-driving cars etc. etc.