4 ms·

If you're asking a machine which human you should vote for, you probably shouldn't be voting.

by black6 11mo ago

mikkupikku 11mo ago
I think we don't do democracy because we think the masses are informed and make good decisions, but rather because it's the best system for ensuring peaceful transitions of power, thereby creating social stability which is conducive to encouraging investment in the future. So uninformed people participating isn't an unfortunate side effect, but rather the point: making everybody feel included in the decision making processes, to make people more likely to accept political change.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  Are you saying?... "I think we do democracy not because we think the masses are informed and make good decisions, but rather because it's the best system for ensuring peaceful transitions of power, thereby creating social stability which is conducive to encouraging investment in the future.
  - mikkupikku 11mo ago
    Yes.
- lesuorac 11mo ago
  I think people argue this but I don't think its true. The lack of warlords leads to peaceful transitions. Trump can feel all he wants about the 2020 election but his sphere of influence was too small to take control. This isn't the case for all those power struggles when a monarch dies. Each Lord had their own militia they could mobilize to take control and leads to stuff like War of the Roses. We had this same issue going into the Civil War where the US army was mostly militias so it's pretty easy to grab the southern ones together and go fight the north. This isn't going to work so well post-1812 where a unified federal army exists. Of course, if you start selectively replacing generals with loyalists then you start creating a warlord.
seanmcdirmid 11mo ago
For local elections, I have to frantically google on the day my ballot is due to figure out how to vote for. My criteria is pretty fixed: I want to vote for moderates but beyond a few high profile races I don't have a clue who the moderate option is. I can see using AI to summarize positions for more obscure candidates.
- netsharc 11mo ago
  But... it's like asking a knowledgeable person. How are you sure she's giving you answers as your criteria demands, or whether she's been influenced to skew the answers to favor a candidate.. "Let me ask Grok who I should vote for..."
- GuinansEyebrows 11mo ago
  > For local elections, I have to frantically google on the day my ballot is due to figure out how to vote for. what on earth?? practically every metropolitan area and tons of smaller communities have multiple news sources that publish "voting guides" in addition to voter pamphlets that go out before elections which detail candidates positions, ballot initiatives etc. barring that you can also just... do your "frantic googling" before the election. it's not a waste of your time to put a little of it toward understanding the political climate of your area and maybe once in a while forming an opinion instead of whatever constitutes a "moderate" position during the largest rightward shift of the overton window in decades.
  - amarcheschi 11mo ago
    With the added bonus that a llm might not even be updated to the last developments of what happened politically and have outdated views or might not know about the candidate well enough to provide accurate info (or at least, more accurate than any voting phamplets or guides)
  - seanmcdirmid 11mo ago
    It isn’t that simple. You have a few top elections that are in the media enough to be very visible. Then you have…judges…school board members…port members…people who you want to choose carefully on but are completely missing from voter guides.
redleader55 11mo ago
Do you think the other ways in which people vote are better: selling your vote, picking a candidate for being presentable, picking a candidate for having the right complexion/religion/sexual orientation, picking a candidate for being married or having kids, picking a candidate because they are "smart", or poor or ... I could go on. Giving the right prompt which you find on the internet might give you a better choice than you might decide for on your own.
- lubujackson 11mo ago
  Well, yes. At least there is intention there, as awful and feebleminded as voters' reasons tend to be. Maybe the best defense of voting is that there are so many reasons people vote that it is hard to manipulate everyone in the same way. Of course, that is historically. Voting is quite compromised at this point no matter how you slice it.
- hulitu 11mo ago
  > Giving the right prompt which you find on the internet might give you a better choice than you might decide for on your own. "Renfield, you are free now. Yes, master." /s
jameslk 11mo ago
Vibe voting is the end of any semblance of neutrality in AI models. Each major party will have its own model
snthpy 11mo ago
I've held similar opinions in the past and debated them with friends. It's a tricky issue. Why do need a licence to drive but not to vote? Except non-birth citizens effectively had to acquire a licence. Philosophers have probably thought about this and can provide an answer. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with their literature. I like Rawls' Veil of Ignorance as a principle for thinking about issues of fairness. Would I choose to live in a society where only informed citizens could vote even if that might preclude me? Probably. Hard to honestly put oneself behind that veil though.

If you're asking a machine which human you should vote for, you probably shouldn't be voting.

by black6 11mo ago

If you're asking a machine which human you should vote for, you probably shouldn't be voting.

I think we don't do democracy because we think the masses are informed and make good decisions, but rather because it's the best system for ensuring peaceful transitions of power, thereby creating social stability which is conducive to encouraging investment in the future. So uninformed people participating isn't an unfortunate side effect, but rather the point: making everybody feel included in the decision making processes, to make people more likely to accept political change.

IAmBroom 11mo ago
Are you saying?... "I think we do democracy not because we think the masses are informed and make good decisions, but rather because it's the best system for ensuring peaceful transitions of power, thereby creating social stability which is conducive to encouraging investment in the future.
- mikkupikku 11mo ago
  Yes.
lesuorac 11mo ago
I think people argue this but I don't think its true. The lack of warlords leads to peaceful transitions. Trump can feel all he wants about the 2020 election but his sphere of influence was too small to take control. This isn't the case for all those power struggles when a monarch dies. Each Lord had their own militia they could mobilize to take control and leads to stuff like War of the Roses. We had this same issue going into the Civil War where the US army was mostly militias so it's pretty easy to grab the southern ones together and go fight the north. This isn't going to work so well post-1812 where a unified federal army exists. Of course, if you start selectively replacing generals with loyalists then you start creating a warlord.

seanmcdirmid 11mo ago

For local elections, I have to frantically google on the day my ballot is due to figure out how to vote for. My criteria is pretty fixed: I want to vote for moderates but beyond a few high profile races I don't have a clue who the moderate option is. I can see using AI to summarize positions for more obscure candidates.

netsharc 11mo ago
But... it's like asking a knowledgeable person. How are you sure she's giving you answers as your criteria demands, or whether she's been influenced to skew the answers to favor a candidate.. "Let me ask Grok who I should vote for..."
GuinansEyebrows 11mo ago
> For local elections, I have to frantically google on the day my ballot is due to figure out how to vote for. what on earth?? practically every metropolitan area and tons of smaller communities have multiple news sources that publish "voting guides" in addition to voter pamphlets that go out before elections which detail candidates positions, ballot initiatives etc. barring that you can also just... do your "frantic googling" before the election. it's not a waste of your time to put a little of it toward understanding the political climate of your area and maybe once in a while forming an opinion instead of whatever constitutes a "moderate" position during the largest rightward shift of the overton window in decades.
- amarcheschi 11mo ago
  With the added bonus that a llm might not even be updated to the last developments of what happened politically and have outdated views or might not know about the candidate well enough to provide accurate info (or at least, more accurate than any voting phamplets or guides)
- seanmcdirmid 11mo ago
  It isn’t that simple. You have a few top elections that are in the media enough to be very visible. Then you have…judges…school board members…port members…people who you want to choose carefully on but are completely missing from voter guides.

redleader55 11mo ago

Do you think the other ways in which people vote are better: selling your vote, picking a candidate for being presentable, picking a candidate for having the right complexion/religion/sexual orientation, picking a candidate for being married or having kids, picking a candidate because they are "smart", or poor or ... I could go on. Giving the right prompt which you find on the internet might give you a better choice than you might decide for on your own.

lubujackson 11mo ago
Well, yes. At least there is intention there, as awful and feebleminded as voters' reasons tend to be. Maybe the best defense of voting is that there are so many reasons people vote that it is hard to manipulate everyone in the same way. Of course, that is historically. Voting is quite compromised at this point no matter how you slice it.
hulitu 11mo ago
> Giving the right prompt which you find on the internet might give you a better choice than you might decide for on your own. "Renfield, you are free now. Yes, master." /s

jameslk 11mo ago

Vibe voting is the end of any semblance of neutrality in AI models. Each major party will have its own model

snthpy 11mo ago

I've held similar opinions in the past and debated them with friends. It's a tricky issue. Why do need a licence to drive but not to vote? Except non-birth citizens effectively had to acquire a licence. Philosophers have probably thought about this and can provide an answer. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with their literature. I like Rawls' Veil of Ignorance as a principle for thinking about issues of fairness. Would I choose to live in a society where only informed citizens could vote even if that might preclude me? Probably. Hard to honestly put oneself behind that veil though.