4 ms·

For the record, it sounds like this particular algorithm is pretty rudimentary, and it is mostly a PR stunt; as the article states, many corporate decisions are

by jal278 12y ago

For the record, it sounds like this particular algorithm is pretty rudimentary, and it is mostly a PR stunt; as the article states, many corporate decisions are already the direct result of quantified information. In practice I bet this would be less awesome than you might expect. To the extent that human boards of directors already single-mindedly optimize profit (largely indifferent to how such decisions affect humanity), it seems like an entirely inhuman optimization of profit would be even more pathological. Algorithmic government perhaps has more promise -- if what it is optimizing is something that positively impacts the average citizen. Interestingly, I would imagine such an algorithmic government optimizing something related to the contentment or happiness of the average citizen would directly conflict with corporate profit optimization. In the end, what you end up with might not be so different than what currently exists implemented by imperfect humans -- a battle between corporate and human interests where those two interests come into conflict.

jqm 12y ago
One way an algorithmic government might be more effective is at long term planning. I think there is deficit of that in our current system... at least in the US. Not to delve into political squabbles but it seems the current system doesn't encourage planning beyond more than a term or two. So we wind band-aiding crisis after crises and creating more long term problems rather than implementing real long term solutions. As far as it goes... laws and constitutions are a type of algorithm, however imperfect. But.... implementation is a often a bit spotty when you have broken components with a self interest and human emotions.
- jal278 12y ago
  Insofar as the algorithmic government was democratic and optimized public opinion, there is no reason to expect it will be better at long-term planning, which is largely a human logical deficiency; we know the likely dangers of global warming at yet we do not much care -- seemingly because it is a long-term concern.
  - jqm 12y ago
    If these known concerns could be enforced by policy makers it might be good for us all. Nobody ever said mob rule was the ideal form of government. And that's why I say..... constitutions are algorithms. Or at least crude attempts at them. The idea is that the system confines and survives the administrators. And yes, the general wishes of the populace are represented. As they should be. But when wishes serve to oppress others or create long term damage to selves or future others this is a problem. Particularly when wishes can apparently be bought and sold by those who control what we see. This situation is where algorithm vs. individual leader is useful to society in general. And this was, I believe, the initial idea behind the US constitution, at least, and probably most others.

by jal278 12y ago

jqm 12y ago

One way an algorithmic government might be more effective is at long term planning. I think there is deficit of that in our current system... at least in the US. Not to delve into political squabbles but it seems the current system doesn't encourage planning beyond more than a term or two. So we wind band-aiding crisis after crises and creating more long term problems rather than implementing real long term solutions. As far as it goes... laws and constitutions are a type of algorithm, however imperfect. But.... implementation is a often a bit spotty when you have broken components with a self interest and human emotions.

jal278 12y ago
Insofar as the algorithmic government was democratic and optimized public opinion, there is no reason to expect it will be better at long-term planning, which is largely a human logical deficiency; we know the likely dangers of global warming at yet we do not much care -- seemingly because it is a long-term concern.
- jqm 12y ago
  If these known concerns could be enforced by policy makers it might be good for us all. Nobody ever said mob rule was the ideal form of government. And that's why I say..... constitutions are algorithms. Or at least crude attempts at them. The idea is that the system confines and survives the administrators. And yes, the general wishes of the populace are represented. As they should be. But when wishes serve to oppress others or create long term damage to selves or future others this is a problem. Particularly when wishes can apparently be bought and sold by those who control what we see. This situation is where algorithm vs. individual leader is useful to society in general. And this was, I believe, the initial idea behind the US constitution, at least, and probably most others.