Computer for President?
Don Wade 2021-02-19
Are we at the point yet where we - as a Nation - could be openly governed by one, or more, computers? Would we vote for a compouter if we thoght the computer(s) was better able to govern than any human entities?
Comments (26)
In the financial world, we extensively use computers to sort of predict trends through complex metrics - but people need to be the one's to interpret the data - or so we're led to believe. I'm sure there are already programs or rudimentary Ai that are doing those things for the financial managers today.
So, if computers can dictate finance, I'm sure we can use them to do the same for policy.
The problem though is if those computers are hacked to favor one group over another. They're only as good as their programming after all.
What does that even mean?
After all, could there be better method to disguise the true intention of of any system then to package it in mathematical mumbo-jumbo and then tell people, "You must follow the science."
Not for nothin' do they call it techofascism. Coming soon to a bankrupt empire near you.
Unfortunately, it's been going on for a long, long time, perhaps the first wizards being the BOE in 1696 as the first central bank. Another wonderful example is when the USG told Americans in 1936 that their social security numbers would never be used for any other reason than for social security (old age pensions).
However, it's what happens in between those live-telecast debates - the campaign trails are riddled with mudslinging, name-calling, and every conceivable underhand tactic a person can think of - that suggests a different conclusion viz. that people vote with, for want of a better word, their hearts, perhaps even their vaginas or penises for all we know. An AI could, in my humble opinion, never match a human in that department for it would be utterly oblivious to the emotional elements involved and if it did somehow manage to acquire this ability we wouldn't know the difference between an AI and a human president rendering the question moot.
Depends on who programmed it.
How would that be any different than what we have now?
The illusion of being ruled by machines is seductive by the principle of equality. It seems like a way to ensure that the law applies equally to everyone. Great, huh? But if the best government is that of the machines, perhaps only they should vote. This we may not like so much.
• [i]Consider Phlebas
• Excession
• Look To Windward[/i]
These are stories of a galaxy-spanning "humanoid" civilization completely "governed – controlled – by super-intelligent A.I.s (called "Minds").
edit:
To paraphrase Herr Heidegger: (Perhaps) only a Technological Singularity can save us now. :smirk:
We are really. But one man/woman at the "top" being replaced by a robot won't fix anything. When you take spirituality, family, and enlightenment out of a persons life and replace it with fear, hate and addiction, then they have been reduced to the level of a biological robot arguably, though not necessarily permanently.
Computers are logical. They won't use irrelevant information like skin color when determining who gets jobs, political appointments, etc., In effect, they would be color-blind and the images on our tele-screen would be accurately represent the composition and diversity of the population (rather than what we have now, which is over-representing and under-representing certain groups for political purposes).
Abstract and complex theories like law, equality, legislation, governance, rights, taxes, etc... Can't be identified by a computer/robot system as a "0/1 pattern" or algorithms. It depends a lot of where are you living: Countries whose rule of law is a constitution/countries whose rule of law is God or religion (for example Morocco or Israel). So in this fact it will be impossible to determinate equality or governance since the moment where the meaning of those terms are differently interpreted by the governors.
Computers are illogical. Who determines what information is relevant? The programmer, not the machine. A computer is a fast fool. Let's try not to be slow fools.
The case for computers making decisions in government is that:
Assuming that an open source architecture can replace government:
If its a closed source system with shady deals done in the background, you end up with something similar to badly managed electronic voting.
How exactly does the programmer decide what information is relevant but a computer can't?
Humans are programmed by natural selection. So natural selection "selected" what is relevant for humans, and it can do the same with computers that are designed to learn.
Rationalism in politics is nonsense. All rationalists believe that any problem can be understood and has a solution. Great nonsense. You don't give credit to practical experience that does not depend on reason, but on time, sensitivity, and a long relationship with complex customs that work in reality. For cooking, playing poker, or competing in lovemaking, there is no theoretical program or knowledge to replace practical experience. If you want to cook badly, lose at poker, or ruin your love story, consult a manual or follow the steps in a biology treatise or on a computer. If you wish the love of a woman and you believe in Darwin, what a shock awaits you, friend.
First we need computer that can actually think (though that does not stop politicians now!).
Every problem does have a solution. Its just that some people prefer to live with the problem rather than the solution, which is a solution (decision) in itself.
Quoting Miguel Hernández
You're forgetting how we animals are programmed by natural selection to have experiences, to love, be sad, etc. (Evolutionary psychology - know anything about it?).
Now that we're on the subject, what exactly is an experience?
When in 1980 the super-rich decided to get their money out of the American economy, deindustrializing the country and sending their factories where wages and environmental regulations are a joke, major north-american cities became hollowed-out helmets of an industrial past that was once glorious, synonymous with decline. Think Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Toledo, and more. Tens of millions of white workers in working-class factories were out of work, losing their high-paying jobs forever. Have they chosen to live with your problems? What are their chances of solving their problems?
The reality is very complex. The problems faced by millions of people are not created or solved by themselves.
Sure. Not wanting to learn anything new is the problem. Adapt and evolve is the solution.
This type of thing has been happening since humans have had jobs. Think about the decline of religion thanks to the discoveries in science. Religion has had to adapt and change to stay viable.
Quoting Miguel Hernández
I never said that one solution solves every problem or even that one solution works for everyone. Thinking requires work and doesn't come easy for many people.