4 ms·
> it’s just a deficit of state capacity. That’s what a “tragedy of the commons” is though. The degradation of a shared resource (state capacity) by people acti
by eddythompson80 2mo ago
> it’s just a deficit of state capacity.
That’s what a “tragedy of the commons” is though. The degradation of a shared resource (state capacity) by people acting in their own best interest.
The state using AI “to make bureaucracy instantaneous” is a tragedy of the commons. The experience is degraded because before you trusted your grievance will be heard, but now you might get auto rejected by an AI. It’s pretty much the definition of the phrase.
- charcircuit 2mo agoIf you get rejected you can appeal the part the AI rejected the same as if you get rejected by a judge.
- wavemode 2mo agoThe loser of every suit will simply always appeal the AI decision, thus requiring a human decision anyway.
- charcircuit 2mo agoAI would review the appeal so that only things which require human decision receive human attention.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2mo agoAnd we trust the AI to reliably decide what requires human attention because...?
- charcircuit 2mo agoBecause modern LLMs are capable. Even if they make a mistake by appealing you can clear it up and convince it why there actually is an argument than it being able to be resolved by just reading the contract for example.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2mo ago[dead]
- Tarq0n 2mo agoThere's still inequality in someone else receiving a false positive approval from the AI while another gets rejected. Equal treatment and stochastic systems don't mix.
- charcircuit 2mo agoThe law is already a stochastic system and it's designed to eventually receive a result that is correct most of the time. It doesn't try to be 100% correct. Not having it be 100% correct does not cause society to fall over.
- theptip 2mo agoExactly. Not to mention that there is no reason a well-calibrated AI system cannot be Pareto-optimal over the human-only system. For example if you are interested in bias, an AI system can be backtested; new policies applied on old data, and whatever metric for inequality you are investigating can be measured. You can’t backtest a human.
- theptip 2mo agoI don’t equate “the commons” to “the state”. Part of the point of the commons was that it was unregulated and shared. The state is one solution to the tragedy of the commons, but not the only one. I don’t view “the state” as a commons. It’s a separate beast. The commons is explicitly owned by all, and I think that’s a faulty model for the state. And to your objection - you’re just objecting to the bad implementation. Obviously we should build it good, not bad - just like every policy. And just like every state action we at least know will not get the perfect version. There is no axiomatic necessity to any of the concerns you raised, and I feel they are obvious points that need to be considered in the design. But if you have other policy ideas do share! As I said I don’t see another path, realistically speaking.