What are general drawbacks for this system of governance? System in body:
-
So first of all,
What:- Simple predicate logic
- who decides the logic? open standards anyone who has a point can draft a point or share their idea
- I know it will be hard, time consuming and very tedious, but it's just an Idea, not like those in power would ever relinquish it so easily.
secondly, I have read about EU laws and it is very challenging but unlike that case, system implemented here would be very fluid, law's validity period is determined by 2 things:
- People's choices
- it's relevance as decided by the system during polling
Which would still not make this system very democratic in a sense but it would really just be distributed AI autocracy, at least the way I see it, its similar to local AI overlords ruling us.
I think there can be many more standards that can be implemented to keep the system bias proof and strongly ethical.
One tangential question I had was:
- If LLM's logic is structural and derivable, even though complex then why aren't algorithms and models tend towards rule based predictions like black scholes model and mdp, or am I just a newbie and hasn't seen enough and I am out of my depth again
wrote last edited by [email protected]Your answer to "What", predicate logic and the tangential question are very strongly related.
As a practical answer: both types (rule based vs deep learning) exists, in practice the latter performs way better.
Philosophically, I think it's a very good question too, to which I can only guess.
There's this saying that physics describes everything. From the smallest particle-wave interactions, to the movement of galaxies. It's just everything inbetween that it struggles with.
My guess: one can hope the world is best modelled as a clever differential equation. It might as well be. But the differential equation needs boundary conditions, and they're very high dimensional. Spending a lot of effort on measuring, memorizing these conditions, and then doing simple first order extrapolation, is more effective than trying to find the equation.
-
Your answer to "What", predicate logic and the tangential question are very strongly related.
As a practical answer: both types (rule based vs deep learning) exists, in practice the latter performs way better.
Philosophically, I think it's a very good question too, to which I can only guess.
There's this saying that physics describes everything. From the smallest particle-wave interactions, to the movement of galaxies. It's just everything inbetween that it struggles with.
My guess: one can hope the world is best modelled as a clever differential equation. It might as well be. But the differential equation needs boundary conditions, and they're very high dimensional. Spending a lot of effort on measuring, memorizing these conditions, and then doing simple first order extrapolation, is more effective than trying to find the equation.
I understand and I think your last paragraph is very poetic! And I agree with you partially, but I think in certain cases, it's better to find the one general case the solution fits to and add the edge cases as it grows.
But putting the question of model selection aside, do you think this system would be practical, theoretically of course?
-
what if it gets magically implemented by god and it is the absolute power, only power above the system would be that of the masses. No small group or individual get's privilege above the computer program
Now it's a theocracy.
-
I understand and I think your last paragraph is very poetic! And I agree with you partially, but I think in certain cases, it's better to find the one general case the solution fits to and add the edge cases as it grows.
But putting the question of model selection aside, do you think this system would be practical, theoretically of course?
I like it as a sci-fi: the AI gods on the hill speak through messengers elect. It's a greek gods and oracles situation.
However I must agree with what others said: humans will manipulate whom- and whatever to enforce their desires.
So the only way to make sure the machine can survive against that, is for them to be able to do the same. Problem being, they might be better at it.
-
I like it as a sci-fi: the AI gods on the hill speak through messengers elect. It's a greek gods and oracles situation.
However I must agree with what others said: humans will manipulate whom- and whatever to enforce their desires.
So the only way to make sure the machine can survive against that, is for them to be able to do the same. Problem being, they might be better at it.
that means I get the answer, the unfeasibility of the solution is not in itself, but rather in its deployment.
-
Now it's a theocracy.
well technically someone had to do it, humans can't and in this game of poker only gods can intervene to save the day
-
well technically someone had to do it, humans can't and in this game of poker only gods can intervene to save the day
Lies! The AI evolved from pocket calculators!
-
that means I get the answer, the unfeasibility of the solution is not in itself, but rather in its deployment.
wrote last edited by [email protected]To get back out of the scifi, and into the sci: you might like to read these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_machine and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixture_of_experts.
-
I don't understand this idea completely myself but it's an evolved form of technocracy with autonomous systems, suggest me some articles to read up on because in the field of politics I am quite illiterate.
So it goes like this:- Multiple impenetrable, isolated AI expert systems that make rule based decisions (unlike black boxes, eg. LLMs).
- All contribute to a notion and the decision will be picked much like in a distributed system, for fairness and equality.
- Then humans are involved, but they too are educated, elected individuals and some clauses that stop them from gaming the system and corrupting it.
- These human representatives can either pick from list of decisions from AI systems or support the already given notion or drop it altogether. They can suggest notions and let AI render it but humans can't create notions directly.
Benefits:
- Generally speaking, due to the way the system will be programmed, it won't dominate or supress and most of the actions will be justified with a logic that puts human lives first and humans profit second.
- No wars will break out since, it's not human greed that's holding the power
- Defence against non-{systemized} states would be taken care by military and similar AI expert systems but the AI will never plan to expand or compromise a life of a human for offense
Cons:
- Security vulnerabilities can target the system and take down the government's corner piece
- No direct representation of humans, only representation via votes on notions and suggestions to AI
- Might end up in AI Apocalypse situation or something I dont know
The thoughts are still new to me, so I typed them out before thinking on paper. Hence, I am taking suggestions for this system!
tl;dr is let AI rule us, because hard coded-rule based decision maker is better than a group of humans whose intents can always be masked and unclear.
DO NOT OBEY LANDRU.
-
I don't understand this idea completely myself but it's an evolved form of technocracy with autonomous systems, suggest me some articles to read up on because in the field of politics I am quite illiterate.
So it goes like this:- Multiple impenetrable, isolated AI expert systems that make rule based decisions (unlike black boxes, eg. LLMs).
- All contribute to a notion and the decision will be picked much like in a distributed system, for fairness and equality.
- Then humans are involved, but they too are educated, elected individuals and some clauses that stop them from gaming the system and corrupting it.
- These human representatives can either pick from list of decisions from AI systems or support the already given notion or drop it altogether. They can suggest notions and let AI render it but humans can't create notions directly.
Benefits:
- Generally speaking, due to the way the system will be programmed, it won't dominate or supress and most of the actions will be justified with a logic that puts human lives first and humans profit second.
- No wars will break out since, it's not human greed that's holding the power
- Defence against non-{systemized} states would be taken care by military and similar AI expert systems but the AI will never plan to expand or compromise a life of a human for offense
Cons:
- Security vulnerabilities can target the system and take down the government's corner piece
- No direct representation of humans, only representation via votes on notions and suggestions to AI
- Might end up in AI Apocalypse situation or something I dont know
The thoughts are still new to me, so I typed them out before thinking on paper. Hence, I am taking suggestions for this system!
tl;dr is let AI rule us, because hard coded-rule based decision maker is better than a group of humans whose intents can always be masked and unclear.
If you try to automate ethics and government with AI you’re gonna have a bad time
-
I don't understand this idea completely myself but it's an evolved form of technocracy with autonomous systems, suggest me some articles to read up on because in the field of politics I am quite illiterate.
So it goes like this:- Multiple impenetrable, isolated AI expert systems that make rule based decisions (unlike black boxes, eg. LLMs).
- All contribute to a notion and the decision will be picked much like in a distributed system, for fairness and equality.
- Then humans are involved, but they too are educated, elected individuals and some clauses that stop them from gaming the system and corrupting it.
- These human representatives can either pick from list of decisions from AI systems or support the already given notion or drop it altogether. They can suggest notions and let AI render it but humans can't create notions directly.
Benefits:
- Generally speaking, due to the way the system will be programmed, it won't dominate or supress and most of the actions will be justified with a logic that puts human lives first and humans profit second.
- No wars will break out since, it's not human greed that's holding the power
- Defence against non-{systemized} states would be taken care by military and similar AI expert systems but the AI will never plan to expand or compromise a life of a human for offense
Cons:
- Security vulnerabilities can target the system and take down the government's corner piece
- No direct representation of humans, only representation via votes on notions and suggestions to AI
- Might end up in AI Apocalypse situation or something I dont know
The thoughts are still new to me, so I typed them out before thinking on paper. Hence, I am taking suggestions for this system!
tl;dr is let AI rule us, because hard coded-rule based decision maker is better than a group of humans whose intents can always be masked and unclear.
AI has little actual understanding of the real world, and the law needs to be written to address externalities and possible loopholes.
An AI good enough simply does not exist yet, and the companies that say they could bring it about have awful ethics track record (overpromising, energy use, disregard of copyright and cultural impact from the model's abuse).
-
AI has little actual understanding of the real world, and the law needs to be written to address externalities and possible loopholes.
An AI good enough simply does not exist yet, and the companies that say they could bring it about have awful ethics track record (overpromising, energy use, disregard of copyright and cultural impact from the model's abuse).
but cant such system be built with open standards, run upon shared public infrastructure
-
If you try to automate ethics and government with AI you’re gonna have a bad time
well, how? what issue would this particular solution give rise to?
-
To get back out of the scifi, and into the sci: you might like to read these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_machine and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixture_of_experts.
mixture of experts leads to no where and I know boltzmann brain but I can simply say, being a figment of someone's imagination doesn't decrease my pains and struggles, implying that my pain were the proof of my being, can be fictious but won't change my reality
-
but cant such system be built with open standards, run upon shared public infrastructure
That doesn't solve the training data problem, you'd have to slash copyright laws first (good luck) and then pick what is acceptable training data. If you choose too little, the AI will not have much grasp on reality.
You're not the first person to suggest that the leaders should be educated and vetted on ethics, and the AI does not add much to the equation.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2635:_Superintelligent_AIs
-
mixture of experts leads to no where and I know boltzmann brain but I can simply say, being a figment of someone's imagination doesn't decrease my pains and struggles, implying that my pain were the proof of my being, can be fictious but won't change my reality
I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out whats wrong with the mixture of experts url
-
I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out whats wrong with the mixture of experts url
:^)
is it the proof that no progress has been made or no information is public?
-
:^)
is it the proof that no progress has been made or no information is public?
Neither, it's a technique that's in use (outside of the political context) and quite similar to what you talked about.
-
Neither, it's a technique that's in use (outside of the political context) and quite similar to what you talked about.
oh wait you mean something like alphazero or other alpha models which are expert systems baked into one model?
-
well, how? what issue would this particular solution give rise to?
The problem here isn’t a technical solution. You think you can develop a technical solution then optimize it, and you’re probably an engineer under 25.
You can’t. The problem isn’t technical. It’s that the problems are so important you need good people on them. Good people know these answers can change. Good people know how and when to bend the rules or change the system when needed.
Finding good people is always harder than a technical problem