What are general drawbacks for this system of governance? System in body:
-
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