7 ms·

A critical flaw in arguments like this is the embedded assumption that the creation of democratic policy is outside the system in some sense. The existence of A

A critical flaw in arguments like this is the embedded assumption that the creation of democratic policy is outside the system in some sense. The existence of AGI has the implication that it can effectively turn most people into sock puppets at scale without them realizing they are sock puppets. Do you think, in this hypothesized environment, that “democratic policy” will be the organic will of the people? It assumes much more agency on the part of people than will actually exist, and possibly more than even exists now.

drdaeman 1y ago
I suspect you’ll probably have to determine the nature of free will (or lack thereof) to answer this. Or, well, learn empirically :-)
foxglacier 1y ago
Normal human communication already does that. Do you really think almost any of the people who share their political opinions came up with them by being rational and working it out from information? Of course not. They just copied what they were told to believe. Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics, it's just "I believe something so I'm right and everybody else is stupid/evil".
- drdaeman 1y ago
  > Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics Because they have different concerns, and time and attention are scarce. With all possible social changes like the article suggests this focus could change too. Ultimately, when things will get too bad, uprisings happen and sometimes things change. And I hope the more we (collectively) get through, the higher are the chances we start noticing the patterns and stopping early.
  - f6v 1y ago
    > With all possible social changes like the article suggests this focus could change too. I have an anecdote from Denmark. It’s a rich country with one of the best work-life balance in the world. Socialized healthcare and social safety net. I noticed that during the election, they put the ads with just the candidate’s face and party name. It’s like they didn’t even have a message. I asked why. The locals told me nobody cares because “they’re all the same anyway”. Two things could be happening: either all the candidates are really the same. Or people choose to focus on doing the things they like with their free time and resources. My feeling tells me it’s the second.
  - kevin_b_er 1y ago
    And that's where drones and robots come in. The goal is to make sure there's no more uprisings, ever again. You need only look at the US, where the rich are given all the benefits in changes in law, and the commoner gets nothing except some get the perverted glee of causing someone else to suffer first, not realizing they're on the menu to be sacrificed later.
- NitpickLawyer 1y ago
  > Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics Not only that, but they actively stop applying critical thinking when the same problem is framed in a political way. And yes it's both sides, and yes the "more educated" the people are, the worse their results are (i.e. almost a complete reversal from framing the same problem as skin care products vs. gun control). Recent paper on this, also covered and somewhat replicated by popular youtubers.
- ysofunny 1y ago
  they way this comment is downvoted goes to show that most people are viscerally reacting to feeling insulted by being called out about how most of what we think most of the time is simply chorus-like repetition of the general vibe we lead ourselves into believing is the vibe of "our" kind of people. our tribe of like minded individuals; the hacker crowd. but at least I can admit this. it's only at certain sparse points in anybody's life that we are forced to really think critically; but this experience is terribly difficult and if/when real enough it comes with the existential dread of impossible choices weighted by real world consequences. I remind myself of this so to feel better about how I am indeed a mindless bot preaching to the choir, repeating what I was told to repeat, and pretending that I am fully present and fully free at all times (nobody is... that would be exhausting)
- Cheer2171 1y ago
  > Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics Including you. This is a 3000 year old critique you just uncritically parroted. It is the the original thought terminating cliche. People have always been calling each other ideologically brainwashed NPCs and themselves independent maverick free thinkers. Except my thoughts are original and critical, everyone else is just a sheep. /s
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    No doubt I have some of that but I at least try to be objective. I often come up with what I think are my own political ideas (no doubt influenced by society) and they sometimes turn out to be wrong but I'm proud of myself for getting there without having them spoon-fed to me and for changing them as I learn more.
trhway 1y ago
Most critical flaw is thinking that any policy on its own would be able to solve the issue. The technology will find a way no matter the policy. The society built on empathy would have been able to work out any issue brought by technology as long as empathic goals take priority. Unfortunately our society is far from being based on empathy, to say the least. And technology and the people wielding it would always work around and past the formal laws, rules and policies in such a society. (that isn't to say that all those laws, rules, etc. aren't needed. They are like levies, dams, etc - necessary local, in time and space, fixes which willn't help in the case of the global ocean rise which AGI and robots (even less-than-AGI ones) will be like) May be it is one of the technological Filters - we didn't become empathic enough (and i mean not only at the individual level, we are even less at the level of the societal systems) before AGI and as a result woudln't be able to instill enough of empathy into the AGI.
jongjong 1y ago
The Greeks already figured out thousands of years ago that the best way to implement democracy was via random selection. Yet here we are, everyone believes that 'democracy' necessitates 'voting'; totally ignoring all the issues which come with voting. The concept of voting, in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, is just dumb. Nobody knows anything about any of the candidates; everything people think they know was told to them by the corporate-controlled media and they only hear about candidates which were covered by the media; basically only candidates chosen by the establishment. It's a joke. People get the privilege of voting for which party will oppress them. Current democracy is akin to the media making up a story like 'The Wizard of OZ' and then they offer you to vote for either the Lion, the Robot or the Scarecrow. You have no idea who any of these candidates are, you can't even be sure if they actually exist. Everything you know about them could literally have been made up by whoever told the story; and yet, when asked to vote, people are sure they understand what they're doing. They're so sure it's all legit, they'll viciously argue their candidate's position as if they were a family member they knew personally.
- PicassoCTs 1y ago
  It would make more sense, to vote on policy by giving priorities and preventing impossible votes (cant have tax reduced while demanding more for services)- and then the policy votes get mapped to the corresponding candidates.
  - jongjong 1y ago
    This is inferior to random selection because this still has the issue that the candidate could claim to hold certain positions, but once voted in, they may not follow through on any of them. The reality of our current democracy is that anyone who manages to even step onto the arena is likely already bought and paid for. There's a candidate with a prepared narrative to appeal to every kind of fool under the sun. With random selection, you'll get average people, their stated positions hardly matter because once all seats of congress and the senate have been filled with random people, their values will almost certainly reflect the true values of average citizens. That's how probability works. With the current approach to voting; all the candidates you get to choose from have already been pre-screened for: 1. Thirst for power and 2. Alignment with the interests of big capital holders (who paid for their campaigns in order to get to this stage). This is a horrible pre-screening process.
PicassoCTs 1y ago
You have a world, where most people act against there own economic interests - i think the "mass mind hacking" achievement can be considered unlocked. Its just expensive and exclusive.
lo_zamoyski 1y ago
What is an “organic will of the people” anyway? Democratic societies always involve years of media and other manipulation to plow and seed the minds of the general public with presumptions, associations, spin, appeals to emotion, and so on. The will is a product of belief, and if beliefs are saturated with such stuff, the so-called “will of the people” - a terrifying and tyrannical concept even at face value - is a product of what people have been led to believe by tyrannical and powerful interests. Add to that that most people are utterly unqualified to participate politically, both because they lack the knowledge and reasoning skill, and because of their lack of virtue, acting out of undisciplined fear or appetite. And sadly, much of these disqualifying flaws also characterize our political leadership! Our political progression follows the decadence described in Plato’s Republic - the decline into timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny - to the letter. In so-called democratic societies, the association of monarchy and aristocracy with tyranny is unthinking and reflexive, but it is not rational. This is a conditioned prejudice that is ignorant of history. And partly it comes from a hyperliberalism that substitutes a live-and-let-live attitude, situated within a context of objective morality and norms and laws drawn from it, with a pathological, relativizing revolution that seethes at the very idea of moral limits, views them as “tyrannical”, and thus seeks to overthrow them. This necessarily leads to tyranny, as morality is the only protection against tyranny; when the authority of objective truth and good are destroyed, power fills the vacuum. We become psychologically and spiritually conquered. The paradox of such “anarchy” is that it is exactly the condition under which “might makes right” can flourish.
CamperBob2 1y ago
The existence of AGI has the implication that it can effectively turn most people into sock puppets at scale without them realizing they are sock puppets. Fox News already did this in the US, and it didn't take AGI.
- 93po 1y ago
  All corporate media has done this. For example, it's made left leaning people think that only Fox News is the issue when it's all corporate media
  - doctaj 1y ago
    All corporate media have the same problems (ie: getting peoples' attention, money, advertising, etc. -- to stay alive). All corporate media have their own internal politics (like all businesses), a historical track record, a reputation, and individuals that have their own biases. However, not all corporate media blatantly lie to their users (that is... tell people incorrect information to get their point across). Fox News blatantly lies to their viewers -- that is, the intent is to give them false information. It IS different from the norm.
    - 93po 1y ago
      this is exactly my point. right wing politics in the US is absolutely uniquely harmful, they are objectively worse than left wing parties. however to think that the WSJ, CNN, WaPo, etc don't routinely lie/distort/twist/misrepresent ALL THE TIME about EVERYTHING is just completely completely wrong. these are publications owned and controlled by billionaires and are absolutely mouthpieces of what those billionaires what to distribute. and its not always "mr evil overlord yelling at the editor to run a fake narrative and lie about XYZ". it's "selfish narcissist billionaire will only hire an editor that already believes all this and does it without being asked to".
      - CamperBob2 1y ago
        Point being, only Fox has lost eight-figure lawsuits for broadcasting lies and calling it "News."
burnt-resistor 1y ago
Tiny factions especially billionaires already own enough of the US government. The corruption is increasing and the chances for any sort of reform from within are diminishing to near zero. John McCain's failure to achieve campaign finance reform was the canary in the coal mine that no reform from within is possible because the property party (backers of D and R) won't allow it. As such the political operating system is hacked irrevocably. It will have to be displaced and reset by a nonviolent popular uprising.
- soco 1y ago
  "displaced and reset by a nonviolent popular uprising" none of these words are particularly comforting... tough times are a-coming.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > It will have to be displaced and reset by a nonviolent popular uprising. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What do you think the newest pet project of Musk is about? I'm talking of his America's Party initiative - an obvious attempt to direct any popular uprising, be it nonviolent or otherwise, into he same old river bed. When you say "popular" you have to take into account who decides what's popular these days and why billionaires are tripping all over themselves to get equipped with "social" media of their own.

drdaeman 1y ago

I suspect you’ll probably have to determine the nature of free will (or lack thereof) to answer this. Or, well, learn empirically :-)

foxglacier 1y ago

Normal human communication already does that. Do you really think almost any of the people who share their political opinions came up with them by being rational and working it out from information? Of course not. They just copied what they were told to believe. Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics, it's just "I believe something so I'm right and everybody else is stupid/evil".

drdaeman 1y ago
> Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics Because they have different concerns, and time and attention are scarce. With all possible social changes like the article suggests this focus could change too. Ultimately, when things will get too bad, uprisings happen and sometimes things change. And I hope the more we (collectively) get through, the higher are the chances we start noticing the patterns and stopping early.
- f6v 1y ago
  > With all possible social changes like the article suggests this focus could change too. I have an anecdote from Denmark. It’s a rich country with one of the best work-life balance in the world. Socialized healthcare and social safety net. I noticed that during the election, they put the ads with just the candidate’s face and party name. It’s like they didn’t even have a message. I asked why. The locals told me nobody cares because “they’re all the same anyway”. Two things could be happening: either all the candidates are really the same. Or people choose to focus on doing the things they like with their free time and resources. My feeling tells me it’s the second.
- kevin_b_er 1y ago
  And that's where drones and robots come in. The goal is to make sure there's no more uprisings, ever again. You need only look at the US, where the rich are given all the benefits in changes in law, and the commoner gets nothing except some get the perverted glee of causing someone else to suffer first, not realizing they're on the menu to be sacrificed later.
NitpickLawyer 1y ago
> Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics Not only that, but they actively stop applying critical thinking when the same problem is framed in a political way. And yes it's both sides, and yes the "more educated" the people are, the worse their results are (i.e. almost a complete reversal from framing the same problem as skin care products vs. gun control). Recent paper on this, also covered and somewhat replicated by popular youtubers.
ysofunny 1y ago
they way this comment is downvoted goes to show that most people are viscerally reacting to feeling insulted by being called out about how most of what we think most of the time is simply chorus-like repetition of the general vibe we lead ourselves into believing is the vibe of "our" kind of people. our tribe of like minded individuals; the hacker crowd. but at least I can admit this. it's only at certain sparse points in anybody's life that we are forced to really think critically; but this experience is terribly difficult and if/when real enough it comes with the existential dread of impossible choices weighted by real world consequences. I remind myself of this so to feel better about how I am indeed a mindless bot preaching to the choir, repeating what I was told to repeat, and pretending that I am fully present and fully free at all times (nobody is... that would be exhausting)
Cheer2171 1y ago
> Almost nobody applies critical thought to politics Including you. This is a 3000 year old critique you just uncritically parroted. It is the the original thought terminating cliche. People have always been calling each other ideologically brainwashed NPCs and themselves independent maverick free thinkers. Except my thoughts are original and critical, everyone else is just a sheep. /s
- foxglacier 1y ago
  No doubt I have some of that but I at least try to be objective. I often come up with what I think are my own political ideas (no doubt influenced by society) and they sometimes turn out to be wrong but I'm proud of myself for getting there without having them spoon-fed to me and for changing them as I learn more.

trhway 1y ago

Most critical flaw is thinking that any policy on its own would be able to solve the issue. The technology will find a way no matter the policy. The society built on empathy would have been able to work out any issue brought by technology as long as empathic goals take priority. Unfortunately our society is far from being based on empathy, to say the least. And technology and the people wielding it would always work around and past the formal laws, rules and policies in such a society. (that isn't to say that all those laws, rules, etc. aren't needed. They are like levies, dams, etc - necessary local, in time and space, fixes which willn't help in the case of the global ocean rise which AGI and robots (even less-than-AGI ones) will be like) May be it is one of the technological Filters - we didn't become empathic enough (and i mean not only at the individual level, we are even less at the level of the societal systems) before AGI and as a result woudln't be able to instill enough of empathy into the AGI.

jongjong 1y ago

The Greeks already figured out thousands of years ago that the best way to implement democracy was via random selection. Yet here we are, everyone believes that 'democracy' necessitates 'voting'; totally ignoring all the issues which come with voting. The concept of voting, in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, is just dumb. Nobody knows anything about any of the candidates; everything people think they know was told to them by the corporate-controlled media and they only hear about candidates which were covered by the media; basically only candidates chosen by the establishment. It's a joke. People get the privilege of voting for which party will oppress them. Current democracy is akin to the media making up a story like 'The Wizard of OZ' and then they offer you to vote for either the Lion, the Robot or the Scarecrow. You have no idea who any of these candidates are, you can't even be sure if they actually exist. Everything you know about them could literally have been made up by whoever told the story; and yet, when asked to vote, people are sure they understand what they're doing. They're so sure it's all legit, they'll viciously argue their candidate's position as if they were a family member they knew personally.

PicassoCTs 1y ago
It would make more sense, to vote on policy by giving priorities and preventing impossible votes (cant have tax reduced while demanding more for services)- and then the policy votes get mapped to the corresponding candidates.
- jongjong 1y ago
  This is inferior to random selection because this still has the issue that the candidate could claim to hold certain positions, but once voted in, they may not follow through on any of them. The reality of our current democracy is that anyone who manages to even step onto the arena is likely already bought and paid for. There's a candidate with a prepared narrative to appeal to every kind of fool under the sun. With random selection, you'll get average people, their stated positions hardly matter because once all seats of congress and the senate have been filled with random people, their values will almost certainly reflect the true values of average citizens. That's how probability works. With the current approach to voting; all the candidates you get to choose from have already been pre-screened for: 1. Thirst for power and 2. Alignment with the interests of big capital holders (who paid for their campaigns in order to get to this stage). This is a horrible pre-screening process.

PicassoCTs 1y ago

You have a world, where most people act against there own economic interests - i think the "mass mind hacking" achievement can be considered unlocked. Its just expensive and exclusive.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago

What is an “organic will of the people” anyway? Democratic societies always involve years of media and other manipulation to plow and seed the minds of the general public with presumptions, associations, spin, appeals to emotion, and so on. The will is a product of belief, and if beliefs are saturated with such stuff, the so-called “will of the people” - a terrifying and tyrannical concept even at face value - is a product of what people have been led to believe by tyrannical and powerful interests. Add to that that most people are utterly unqualified to participate politically, both because they lack the knowledge and reasoning skill, and because of their lack of virtue, acting out of undisciplined fear or appetite. And sadly, much of these disqualifying flaws also characterize our political leadership! Our political progression follows the decadence described in Plato’s Republic - the decline into timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and finally tyranny - to the letter. In so-called democratic societies, the association of monarchy and aristocracy with tyranny is unthinking and reflexive, but it is not rational. This is a conditioned prejudice that is ignorant of history. And partly it comes from a hyperliberalism that substitutes a live-and-let-live attitude, situated within a context of objective morality and norms and laws drawn from it, with a pathological, relativizing revolution that seethes at the very idea of moral limits, views them as “tyrannical”, and thus seeks to overthrow them. This necessarily leads to tyranny, as morality is the only protection against tyranny; when the authority of objective truth and good are destroyed, power fills the vacuum. We become psychologically and spiritually conquered. The paradox of such “anarchy” is that it is exactly the condition under which “might makes right” can flourish.

CamperBob2 1y ago

The existence of AGI has the implication that it can effectively turn most people into sock puppets at scale without them realizing they are sock puppets. Fox News already did this in the US, and it didn't take AGI.

93po 1y ago
All corporate media has done this. For example, it's made left leaning people think that only Fox News is the issue when it's all corporate media
- doctaj 1y ago
  All corporate media have the same problems (ie: getting peoples' attention, money, advertising, etc. -- to stay alive). All corporate media have their own internal politics (like all businesses), a historical track record, a reputation, and individuals that have their own biases. However, not all corporate media blatantly lie to their users (that is... tell people incorrect information to get their point across). Fox News blatantly lies to their viewers -- that is, the intent is to give them false information. It IS different from the norm.
  - 93po 1y ago
    this is exactly my point. right wing politics in the US is absolutely uniquely harmful, they are objectively worse than left wing parties. however to think that the WSJ, CNN, WaPo, etc don't routinely lie/distort/twist/misrepresent ALL THE TIME about EVERYTHING is just completely completely wrong. these are publications owned and controlled by billionaires and are absolutely mouthpieces of what those billionaires what to distribute. and its not always "mr evil overlord yelling at the editor to run a fake narrative and lie about XYZ". it's "selfish narcissist billionaire will only hire an editor that already believes all this and does it without being asked to".
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      Point being, only Fox has lost eight-figure lawsuits for broadcasting lies and calling it "News."

burnt-resistor 1y ago

Tiny factions especially billionaires already own enough of the US government. The corruption is increasing and the chances for any sort of reform from within are diminishing to near zero. John McCain's failure to achieve campaign finance reform was the canary in the coal mine that no reform from within is possible because the property party (backers of D and R) won't allow it. As such the political operating system is hacked irrevocably. It will have to be displaced and reset by a nonviolent popular uprising.

soco 1y ago
"displaced and reset by a nonviolent popular uprising" none of these words are particularly comforting... tough times are a-coming.
bigbadfeline 1y ago
> It will have to be displaced and reset by a nonviolent popular uprising. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. What do you think the newest pet project of Musk is about? I'm talking of his America's Party initiative - an obvious attempt to direct any popular uprising, be it nonviolent or otherwise, into he same old river bed. When you say "popular" you have to take into account who decides what's popular these days and why billionaires are tripping all over themselves to get equipped with "social" media of their own.