And this is the problem. Letting a machine vote on our behalf, if we didn't think things through. Making Longterm decisions made by peoples current preferences is horrifying. That really would be loke the jungle. But I know what comes next here. I am just a critic who has no open mind for new ideas.
P A A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
@@walperstyle "Free Market Capitalism" only works Hypothetically. in the Real world, some may call it "corporatism" but it's always Naturally destined in that direction.
Another issue to consider before implementing a program like this is the fact that, nowadays, our social media accounts are influenced heavily by advertisements and algorithms to keep attention. The advertisements and algorithms will directly be influencing how our avatar votes.
Yeah, but you could create best-practice, research-based, evidence-based solutions to increase the chance your AI assistant is voting based on what you want, and not based on what is influencing you. People will always have agendas, and they will always try to influence people. But we can design systems that address that.
i mean that also applies to our current democracy YOU are influenced so ur avatar would be, the solutions would probably be to cut off these algorithims and adverts
Probably not a bad idea, municipal level government would be a safer environment too as the power is inherently quite limited often with little or no actual legislative power but seeing if it can effectively manage the prioritisation and resource allocations tasks at a local level, which lets face it is the majority of the municipal authorities workload, would give some idea if it's even remotely ready to be considering giving it legislative influence.
Come to #Detroit We just got out of bankruptcy but now coronavirus is gonna turn us into 3rd world I'm trying to hustle some of the money we have before its leaves
But that could be achieved with slight modifications to the process like having a forum and an AI directing the debate.. Imagine your phone (or whatever will take its place) asking you questions and debating your answers (on others' behalf).. An hour of this everyday for everybody is now like a chore.. This allows for unprecedented scale of debate while still being a direct democracy (actually enabling it)..
I think it could at least mitigate. Depends on the implementation. If the system would not treat all the votes equally, but based on a complex multidimensional personal rating, it could consider personal biases and tendencies to be brainwashed.
@@kandysman86 you are correct in spirit, but the popular misunderstanding of terminology is tragic. The problem is populism, which means Majority Rule. Voting by majority empowers the most popular politicians to be above the law, this directly creates a ruling class we call Politicians. The ancient Greeks had this problem, they called it Oligarchy when popular voting created these rulers which divided society. The Greek system that solved this was called... Democracy! Except Greek Democracy did not use voting, their government was elected by Sortition. So why don't we use Sortition instead of Voting? Because the rulers have convinced us that it is bad, and ruined the real meaning of Democracy: It's not voting, it's government by the people aka Sortition
The problem with our current democracy is that people are largely ignorant about topics that don't have a direct and noticeable impact on their own lives, and they are easily influenced/manipulated by others. This doesn't really solve any of that. It's interesting in theory, but I really can't see how it would be an improvement over our current system. Instead of choosing representatives that we don't know enough about, we'd be voting directly on issues that we don't know enough about. Trusting an algorithm to determine our vote has been proven to not work, just look at any social media website. RUclips is a prime example of how these algorithms fail. It just feeds you the same thing over and over again until you manually search for something different. They guide you towards a bubble based on what you search for, and then the algorithm doubles down on that type of content to trap you inside of it. This prevents people from seeing other topics or alternate perspectives that they may actually agree with. Wouldn't this political automation just end up doing the same thing? If you don't decide yourself, it would have to compare your known perspectives with those of others, and could end up voting contrary to what you would actually want had you bothered to learn both perspectives.
The ambition is to be able to make people less ignorant by presenting them with vetted information about relevant topics in a graspable manner. One reason people are currently uninformed and ignorant is because it is difficult to get details of various bills and also of statistics that could be a good input to make sound decisions (i.e. bad UI as he says).
Well, I would rather trust a non partial A.I made up of MY own politcal thoughts than trust some inherently biased carreer politician more concerned with his/her own day to day in the political game. And some of what you write above is more an attack on the flaws of democrasy itself rather than the A.I programs
Honestly it may actually help with some of those problems on a cultural level. Yeah, no one is knowledgeable about all of the fields which are required for governing a country, but I feel like a large part of that is apathy and disengagement with our current political system. People don't feel the need to be educated in our current system because that won't change anything. If people had more personal responsibility in government, and if AI assistance made getting informed about relevant issues easier, we might see that change. As for your issues of trusting algorithms, that's why his suggesting of open-source and a free marketplace of algorithms is promising. You aren't stuck with one algorithm, but are free to choose whichever one you think best represents you. You should be able to test out a dozen algorithms before choosing one to make sure you're happy with how it works.
It sounds like he's suggesting we go full digital right from the start. I think that's a mistake. Let's start analog: Make politicians wear body-cameras.
This sounds really good but i have one question. How can we make sure whomever is writing the code and the organisation who make it wont make deliberate changes with hidden agenda?
@@ghipsandrew Which is why I no longer watch movies. Entertainment used to bond people and families which then further enforces said boxes into ones and the groups paradigm of thinking and the movie is not reality to begin with.Measured and responsible chemical deprogramming and constant learning and ego checking is the only way to grow intellectually and not allow the system or its control mechanisms to affect you.
Yeah I can already see the structure of it and it is terrible the world is being harmed in every aspect like coders becoming tyrants and companies becoming powerful like this is not a democracy this is in fact against democracy
@@cannedfrootloops7803 if you’re a coder or a software programmer it is not your responsibility or duty to be a political figure it is your job to be a computer logician that is it if you want to be in power give up your programming and become one
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
It seems this still does not fix the problem of ignorant people making decisions. After all the input for the algorithm is made by a person that most likely is not qualified to understand the issues. Right?
@@PiraNov As he says in minute 2:55... decisions people would have to make on topics they know little about. This is a problem with our current system, and as I understand it, a problem still in the mechanism he proposes.
And worse, it empowers them. Like they might not have that much power if they only voted for politicians who know at least a bit of reason, but if a software representative would think "how would this idiot vote on this issue he's never heard of or cares about", it's even more dangerous.
Yeah, that's why you will probably need multiple parts to this process and multiple layers of abstraction. An agent for your character / views and a system that understands the bills. The agent will know you, the voting system will know about the bills. So in more detail something like this: - an abstract version of your political views, wishes, focusses, readiness for compromise (your agent or homunculus) - clearly defined bills with quantifiable choices formulated in an unambigous way so that even an AI can understand it (not talking about AGI, just AI) - more complex issues would require either to break the bill down into smaller parts or have experts "translate" it for the AI (has to be an open source process) - risk analysis for consequences of a bill (either by AI, community or by experts or all of those) - a system to rate the compatibility between your agent and a certain vote If the project starts as a political advisory software first we might be able to get enough data to get good enough results. Of course this would not stop emotional and outraged people from overriding the system with uninformed spontaneous votes. But my naive hope in this would be, that by having an agent less people would vote uninformed, because you could read the gist of a bill and its consequences (summarised in a user friendly and understandable way). And if you override it it could show you why it thinks that choice might be out of character for you (and it should zap you :P).
Direct Democracy like Switzerland has it, is a good way to govern and have politicians under controll. However, people have to be educated and must know, that voting is not a choice only,but a responsibility.
Switzerland is a small country with less poverty than in most of the countries in Europe. So you have a lot of educated citizens, cause they can afford education and the government has not too many people to educate. That system you have works for you. Not for others. Look what happened to England. They have to leave the EU, because their citizens weren't educated enough to understand the consequences of a brexit.
@@rinmartell2678Martell: Has nothing to do with the size of a country, it is the attitude and pride. There are two quotes which may help you to understand: "for things to change, you have to change" and "if you really want to do something, you will find a way-; if not, you will find an excuse"! both by Jim Rohn NB: Small countries have fewer people to pay taxes and contribute to the success then bigger countries have.
@@felixniederhauser7799 Size has a great deal to do with it . Switzerland is a tiny majority white and very wealthy . It is very simple to educate a few like minded . The lone example of Switzerland has many qualifiers left out .Here's a couple Very religious Cost of living highest in the world No free health care Low taxation Iconic banking system 94% white 12 yr to citizenship Small means tested meager welfare system and much more Size is in fact crucial
This sounds pretty good, but there is one main problem. Direct democracy is dangerous. Remember the saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Checks and balances are required to prevent majority rule from becoming mob rule over the minority.
That's why all democracies have constitutions and rights that cannot be overruled by a simple majority. For instance, changing the US constitution requires a significant supermajority of 2/3 in both the House and Senate. But the most important aspect is probably that generally, people are not evil. Most people are benevolent and would what they can to improve the world. Most politicians share that same ideal. Not all, but most. But none of them are flawless, and some of them are malevolent. My point is that a direct democracy has nothing to do with that lamb and wolves qoute. It's about not having a constitution at all and letting anything pass. No democracy is like that, and there's not reason why a direct democracy would be any different.
@@DirtyPoul I'm not sure what your point is. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy so you're comparing apples to oranges. If we were a democracy, California would write all the laws. The founding fathers wisely avoided such a scenario by limiting the voting power of any one state over the others. And funny enough, you mentioned the need for 2/3rd majority to amend the Constitution. In Franklin's wolf and lamb anecdote, they would have the super majority needed to eat the lamb. Thus the next line, "Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." Note democracy does not equal liberty.
@@walshmt84 I apologise for the late reply. I initially read your reply on my phone and wanted to reply when I got back to a keyboard, but that never happened. The US is a constitutional republic, but it is also a democracy. One does not exclude the other. Sure, you could make an argument that the US is moving towards a plutocracy and away from democracy, but that's a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with it being a constitional republic. Surely, you know the meanings of the terms? "If we were a democracy, California would write all the laws." No, what? That would be a type of aristocracy where a certain class of citizens gain all power over the rest, despite being a tiny minority. California is the most populous US state, but that doesn't mean they need to hold absolute power for the US to be a democracy. Let me make an example. Do you believe Germany is a democracy? If so, why? Nordrhein-Westfalen is the most populous German state, but they don't hold absolute power. So why would California need to hold absolute power for the US to be a democracy? Your argument doesn't make any sense. "The founding fathers wisely avoided such a scenario by limiting the voting power of any one state over the others." They chose to give some power to the states as entities rather than letting the population as a whole decide. Personally, I think they went too far since their system has ended up introducing some anti-democratic side effects. One of them being that votes in swing states are much too important in presidential elections. The states already hold a lot of power through the Senate. Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would be much more fair. Add a run-off system like in France and you'd also allow 3rd party candidates to have a fair chance. "Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." That sounds all well and good in theory. But does it actually work in practice? What are the citizens supposed to do? They have done nothing so far while their country becomes more and more plutocratic through lobbying and corruption. Funny enough, that's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. But what happened? He simply doubled down and took it further than ever by appointing wealthy businessmen to key political roles. And what does the "well armed lamb" do? It has done nothing so far, and I'm not counting on that changing any time soon. "Note democracy does not equal liberty." Your point being?
@@DirtyPoul First, I just want to say thank you for a thoughtful, respectful response. It's hard to find good conversation online. I appreciate it. I think we might be using different definitions of democracy. As I understand it, democracy is majority rule. The act of voting is democratic. So the US was designed with democratic elections. In this sense we could describe the US government as a democratic republic. We could describe Germany as democratic under this. I honestly know very little about the organization of German government. So the question seems to be is Democracy actually a good thing? It depends on your goal. When I read the constitution the intent seems to be an attempt to organize a government that maximizes liberty for the individual. Now how this gets applied has changed over time. Senators for example were not originally elected. This was to give the states a voice in government in the form of the Senate. Today they are elected democratically. Are we more or less free now? That's a whole conversation aside, but I would argue we are less free now. In a straight democracy, the popular vote wins. No checks, no balances, nothing. So if we're voting on an agriculture bill. What does someone living in downtown Manhattan, or LA know about farming? So lets say we're voting on a bill that will give farmers access to less restrictive regulation making their job easier. All the people in the city say no, because they are concerned about the environment. While the farmers all vote yes, because they understand how it works in practice. The farmers lose. This is why California would decide all our elections for us. Because with their population, just a few key cities would outvote the rest of the country on issues that may or may not affect them. California has no idea what kinds of laws work best in Colorado, or Wyoming, or Maine, or Florida. The point being we need a limit on how far Californians votes go. So we create states. So the votes of California only decide what the law is in California, and on a federal level they don't get more say than any other states. This is the purpose of the electoral college. To limit the capacity of one or two states to decide an election on their own through sheer population. No it's not perfect. But it limits direct democratic power for a good reason. What should people do? Educate themselves and then vote. Ideally. I believe knowledge is by far our most powerful weapon, but of course Franklin was talking about guns, and the second amendment. Should people use violence to overthrow the government? Eventually, if needed. But as long as your vote means something, I don't think we've hit that point. The point wasn't that we should turn to violent revolt when things don't go our way. The point was that the government should fear it's citizens, and not the other way round. Of the people, by the people, for the people. So my point to Democracy does not equal Liberty, is that I believe Liberty is more important, and it's all too often curtailed under the guise of democracy. Straight democracy, without any check or balance becomes mob rule. Minorities don't matter in a straight democracy. Alternative opinions don't matter in a straight democracy. This is why republican principles are important (the system, not the party).
It doesn't mean it is a good idea. I don't think his statements against direct democracy hold much water I think it is more effective and efficient than coming up with futuristic technology, I believe trchnology is very overrated and it is distracting us from what other alternatives have to offer
This was one of the unforeseen side effects in the former Soviet block. Private busyness was not only a dirty word - it was a crime. Also IQ was uses to assign probability for “betrayal of communist ideal” - the higher the IQ - the higher the risk - the lower you go in the social scale. Except if you were also a criminal psychopath - then you rise to the highest ranks in leadership. Anyway, education (either providing or receiving) was the only refuge for smart people keeping them sane. That’s why there and then was the best ever educational system that humanity ever had. That’s why Russians are unsurpassed till those days in fundamental sciences - the ones that don’t make you rich ;) but smarter.
I agree, but a bigger problem is how quickly the powerful can dumb an entire nation down. I've heard 1 generation. Not a stretch when I look around my country.
Debt Miner , the powerful don’t need to do much - the regular Joe-6pack will gladly take the slippery slope. The powerful have to pich-in for the grease ;) subsidized cheap food and entertainment always covers 110% of the majority (mob) needs. Not sure what can you (or anybody for yah matter) do since it’s a “victimless crime “. Actually the so-called victims are not screaming from abuse - they are moaning in delight. I am not sure what percentage of the population would choose the “red pill” Don’t try to save someone who doesn’t ask to be saved - you only will get in trouble! Try to find a way out of this insane asylum for yourself
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
With blockchain everything would be traceable and transparent I'd imagine. You'd probably be able to run all kinds of reports to get insights into the decisions made on your behalf and the effects, I'm sure it would very insightful and perhaps mindset changing.
Democracy 2.0 will need several design iterations. A replacment system could be run in parallel with the current system to flush out inevitable problems.
Yeah I'm very much in favor of combining the strong sides of artificial and human intelligence. Also there should be a really strong verification protocol to prevent any risk of a cyber attack. Maybe a block-chain based system would work? I'm not well informed on those kind of systems.
The longest lasting empire was the Chinese, they failed when they implemented democracy and when they refused to trade with other nations. Democracy is not a good system. Would you trust a room of random people to make a complex task such as a surgery on yourself? Nope, you would hire an expert, like an expert surgeon. And people aren't good at voting for the best expert surgeons, they vote for the most popular
I love the definition of the problem: cognitive bandwidth! As for the solution, personal AIs are needed that are independently controlled by individuals-not corporations.
You will never get that. They will always have a way to control it and we will never be the wiser. Just look at the phone in your hand. Do you really think that you have control over how that operates, no matter what options you turn on or off. People need to wake up, our overlords are not here to help us, they are here to cull us down to a controllable number. They don't need us anymore. They can automate almost everything that they need or want now. They also don't need more money, they have it all. What they need now is to kill most of us before we wake up. It is a game to the finish now. Don't believe me, listen to their speeches and policies, it is all there in plan sight.
Winston Churchill said the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. That's why the US is a republic. Read the comments for confirmation.
"A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or propertyof the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of stateis not a hereditary monarch." If USA is not democracy, then oligarchy or autocracy.
And so is France, but you'll see no French arguing that France is not a democracy. Why? Because like the US, France is a democratic republic. The US would only cease to be a democracy the day elections stopped having an impact. And in that case, it wouldn't become a republic, it would become an autocracy. That's what happened in Germany when Hitler ceized power soon after his election.
It's hilarious people keep parroting this "US is a republic, not a democracy" bullshit. Y'all literally vote for your president, your senators and your representatives. If that ain't democracy, I don't know what is.
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
Yeah outside of the 📦 stupid. There is a reason why many countries abondond the idea of voting computers. Go fight againts voting computers. Inform yourself at EFF.org or CCC.de and other sources why voting computers are harmful.
P A A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
@@martinagiuslia Dumb and Stupid are the same thing......you really believe that corruption can not be automated. Please stop your embarrassing yourself and this speaker is embarrassing himself, everything can be hacked, or bought, bribed corrupted. Please stop, when you give someone or something else your power of choice or decision you become vulnerable to tyranny . Learn from History as it repeats its self no matter the advancement in technology.
He did not consider the concept of Perfect Representation. Conceptually, his AI agent is just another representative in Perfect Representation, which would be safer, more flexible, more backwards compatible, and more ... representative ... than what he proposes. Search for "Perfect Representation Amendment". (I tried to provide a link but such collaboration was not allowed.)
Plato called this democracy, it was the weakest form of government in his book Republic. He was right when he said it leads to tyranny and anarchy every time, often the have nots against the haves and other minorities. The framers of America's constitution didn't give us a democracy, what they gave us what is called a federal, non- parliamentary, democratic republic. We already have representatives speaking for the people, and the Senate to speak for various states, not the people, (the Senate was not even directly elected by the people in the 19th Century, but elected in the state legislatures). Under this guy's plan those who write the code to count the votes pick the winners, we've already seen that algorithms on RUclips can be used to silence opinions and people, the people running the system don't like. This is a goofy idea,that will never happen and that's a good thing. As Stalin said "It's not who gets the most votes it's who counts the votes".
You must hate open source software then. But, actually, it's probably the best software we have since it can be vetted publicly, so that password manager, or encryption software, or whatever, that you use can have thousands of people vet the code and determine if it's doing what it says it does, or if it has some. If people helped fund some great open source software, it could lead to a great product. Where could that money come from? In part, from all the money saved from the political circus that costs millions per year. (In the US, it's like billions per year. What a waste of fucking money.) So your point is "closed source software is bad for something like this," which is kind of a "duh" thing to anyone who understands software. I don't say that to condescend, but to point out that you have a very strong opinion on something you don't seem to fully understand (based on your statements). That's common, but unwise. To anyone who understands software, having no transparency for something that is created for personal or public interest is inherently a bad idea, and of course we wouldn't do it. Also, old mate in the video mentioned that you could see the results of how the AI assistant was voting, and choose to retrain it to vote differently. Like anything, if 'Popular Open Source AI Assistant 42' wasn't doing it's job well, it'd get bad reviews, and either improved or a new one would be created. Forks would be created. Eventually, we'd go from handweaving to an automated factory, designed by humans. The idea has more promise than what you make out.
This is not possible any time soon. We'd need an AI with superhuman knowledge of human psychology in order for it to 'know' how an individual would vote on a particular bill if he/she were to have full knowledge of the issue. Otherwise, the proposed AI would likely just vote based on the silly, incoherent 'political' template of views it perceives in society. Even worse than having politicians.
Have you read the conversation that was published with Google's LaMDA AI? I find it far from incoherent or silly. I know you wrote this 2 years ago. But real philosophical complex isues were discussed. Its really exciting.
Nah man, humans just need to program AI and make it understand what conditions make humans unhappy, which are objetive things like famine, labor mistreatment, physical and psychological stress, if AI can understand that a great part of humanity suffer from this stuff, on a low or higher level, it should conclude at some point that those who govern, and are leaders of the people should be replaced by AI, depending on the actions and contribution to society they have had, since humans for thousands of years have had the opportunity to redeem themselves, but it has the ego of men mattered more than the collective well-being, so the AI with all the information collected should provide us with a better future, without this emotional sh*, that create wars and fortune to a reduce group of people
@@shaegrover9516 Your digression adds nothing to the actual debate, still, thanks for calling it, I shall edit it and correct it. Being English my fourth language sometimes comes at a linguistic accuracy cost, but I should not fall lazy on my spelling, as it does not help in forwarding my point. Nevertheless, due to the rhetorical follow up question you make, I do find myself oblige to ask you how many languages actually you speak?
He already said, we can't know everything, we are gonna be overloaded with information. Maybe on major issues we can agree, but on less popular and more sophisticated issues we kinda stupid ( generally). So maybe by our preference we can let those "avatars" help us decide. It's obvious dangerous, but still as he said, at the end; Political realm is destination, but beginning will be library and toilet line in house)
@@billyrigby4839 Exactly, the AI wouldn't be enforcing or interpreting the law; it would just write it. If things go wrong, there is always the option to turn it off. That said, it would be everyone's best interest, in my opinion, to keep these and all AI systems separate from each other.
@@JiberishMCUTUBE That wouldn't work. If you can just turn it off any time "when laws are wrong" we would need someone who decides when laws are considered wrong. And then the whole point of this system is gone, because now we have a small group of people deciding over those laws made by the AI again.
I've been writing something similar for the past years, and I might have a "different" proposal, It's great to see the fears and doubts of people in the comments to tackle those first. - The important thing for everybody reading is to NOT forget that politicians NEED to be replaced or at least the System MUST change.
It's a good idea. The Devil is in the details. For me, the algorithm couldn't be based on what I read and listen to because much of that is stuff I disagree with while trying to learn other points of view. The legislation is another area that could get dicey; Overall though, it's a good starting point and worth investigating and running trials.
I agree with what he said, this concern of yours is just a minor detail. event if the AI was 80-90% accurate it might still end up being more accurate representation of people than the 20-40-60% of vote participation. A major problem I could see happening is what happens to unrealistic ideas that people hold, when two things people really want can't be both accomplished.
No its not. Its not just a question of minor details. There a many flawed assumptions to start with. Voting computers are not a good idea. Automating that process is worse. Letting AI write good laws in your interest without understand what it means to be alive - good luck. Sorry folks, but get an 5-10 years education of what AI is and can do nowadays and you would not even remotly consider this to be a good idea.
@@sebastianwiesendahl5348 I am a computer engineer I find your opinion on AI invalid. You can totally automate this, this could be implemented in 5-10 years and by the progress we ve made in the past decade this looks possible, even more so when you have a huge pool of data to work with such as a billion people worth of data an AI could do wonders. it doesn't need to understand what it means to be alive, I question your understanding of AI honestly
I was at a computer conference and some lawyer was doing a talk. He said "We employed the world's top experts in cyber security and our system is now unhackable." ... The whole conference burst out laughing and the guy looked embarrassed. The NSA gets hacked regularly, multiple cyber security companies get hacked on a regular basis.... If it's on a network, you can exploit it.
I like your idea, Mr. Hidalgo, but I'd prefer it if we were given time off (so reducing the working hours per week to say 30 and make that mandatory!) to get informed about politics (I do my best now, but with more time I could also do more here) and that we can make our own decisions (so the politicians would exist in my idea, but they would only make suggestions for new laws and regulations and the people would then vote on them directly and do so once a week)!
An intermediate stage could be limited direct democracy---referendums, ballot measures, propositions, etc---but much more often, while we still delegate to representatives. To be frank though, as an American, many of our current representatives don't have much specialized knowledge; rather, they have corporate financial backing.
This idea carries a lot more vulnerability for the public than it does to power. It would most likely be owned, designed and run by powerful tech companies and used for datamining and ultimately manipulating the public consciousness. Interesting that he doesn't touch on any of these practical matters. As I mention elsewhere, there's a lot of power in choosing which bills and laws are tabled, which aren't, and how they are described and framed. Be very, very wary about this.
Lekim Nines You are absolutely right. This crook describes the near future of a global dictatorship. It is really sad, but we will inevitably live it. Masses prove no resistance to Big Brothers invasion in all parts of their life. It makes me angry that TED gives speech to this parasite..
@@chriswarren3046 yup, and blockchained, so every software analysis firm, or computer geek, can see it and continuosly suggest improvement, through a constitutional system, somewhat like Debian does
Hey guys!👋 If you are intrested in Political systems to its ideologies, then I highly recommend you to visit the GovLOGUE community in Discord. Its a place where people can openly talk and discuss about such important questions without the left wing⬅️🔵 & right wing➡️🔴 biases, plus, even allows its members to create their own government system♻️ if they have any! Its a new server that is just recently created, and most of all, its free for all who are intrested to join!🤝 So do hop in and form some dialogue in GovLOGUE!!!✊ *LINK: discord.gg/Np8kVvT6
The solution makes for a good case to solve the participation issue, but there's an inherent flaw in the assumption that "more participation" (software or physical) will ensure better functioning of a democracy. Much like Socrates pointed out, the real dilemma is who get's to have a say at all, on what merit and if everyone should have a say at all? (this has and will obviously garner more debate and criticism). There's a spectrum of people, some who might be spending hours researching and informing themselves to train their avatars (in this case) VS some who will be going by popular thought and some who just won't care. Plus, if you replace elected representatives with a personal representative, there's no guarantee that your AI avatar will put national interest ahead of their personal interests. Like I said though, it WILL address the participation issue and the resultant outcome will be a real metric of selfish desires VS collective good. Much like any other idea, we'll never know until it's tried, so the real question is how badly do we need an alternative and what are we willing to risk for it?
Brilliant. If more people spent time on something like this as they do playing games or being on Facebook the world would be a better place. If we could integrate gaming and social media into something like an app that seems like a logical means to achieve the outcome we all need.
This could be amazing. Could be terrifying. In the end there needs to be very clearly defined parameters around what can be voted on and what can’t. Meta law is unimaginably important in these waters.
I like the idea of a process that could review our collective thoughts on a subject and propose laws to support them. I think Jasondavisvids makes a good point with the idea that our present views could be changed. Perhaps a mechanism that could initiate a debate on difficult topics, with AI providing counterpoints and possibly scientific data to educate the user.
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
A radical idea with no fool-proof mechanisms. Dismissing important questions and thinking wishfully is not the solution. They need to be addressed because even the smallest issue can break the entire system. Right from when the idea started I was wondering how my agent would represent me accurately, and even more so about the time I need to spend training. Also how accessible is this piece of tech? This is reality and not pessimism. Finally, an incomplete proposal.
When he mentioned pessimists he was talking about you. 🤣 He literally told you how it could be started on a small scale to test its viability and you still just want to shoot it down. 😂
I can understand what he meant by that. I was just pointing out the way important questions were dismissed without being addressed. To be clear, I was not criticizing the idea. I was criticizing the proposal.
@@Useernaamee This is surely an idea that can be worked with, which would then require a lot of loopholes to be closed. I personally think that a better solution is by incentivising political participation or even more effective by disincentivising nonparticipation. Say something like you have to watch a webinar and vote for a set of relevant bills every month and doing so would give you a small percentage tax waiver. To eliminate bad politicians, a more stringent criteria should be used to set the quality bar high. Any criminal background has to be rejected. Lastly, if 76% of people are not turning up for voting of Mayer, it's because most of the issues at that level are of no significance to their life. Not exactly the same as cognitive bandwidth issue. So the solution could also be finding the issues most people actually face or care about while ensuring participation of relevant population.
I've had some similar thoughts (coming from a web development background) and on how to solve major world problems. So I'm happy to have stumbled upon this video and that other people are thinking about out-side-the-box solutions because democracy is clearly broken and flawed. Doesn't take a genius to put that together. No system will ever be perfect because at the core, the biggest flaw will always be the human element. I do think that education could definitely help alleviate the problem but politicians are just too fucking wrapped up with pocketing dough and resorting to third grade level of mud slinging to really care about actually allotting the proper money to education. It doesn't benefit them to have a more educated populace. So it's always a catch twenty two. I am certain that this solution could work if humanity is willing to actually go down this road. The human mind (despite its pitfalls) is incredible. I am certain that humanity could work out the kinks if we put our minds to it. But the problem is that there are far too little actual intelligent humans willing to undertake something like this versus the dumb majority of population who are uneducated and apathetic to the process of democracy; not to mention the most important road block of all, politicians whose interests would be threatened by this. I fear that the only way to solve the democracy problem is to have a revolution that could range anywhere between somewhat peaceful to really fucking bloody. Politicians are certainly going to cling to power with every fiber of their body and mind and it'll take a herculean effort to purge this country of the political cancer it has.
Till date, I think it is the best and most radical use of artificial intelligence in the present world. For decision making by using machine learning algorithms, we can evolve a political system based on direct democracy that would be a revolution all around the world.
Stay woke? Lol. Thats ok buddy, i steer clear of insane ideological ignorance masquerading as some kind of deep "woke" understanding of reality. Or maybe you were being ironic. I hope so.
If human genocide is the AI end game, this is some pretty cushy trim on the train to that camp. Kinda untenable to conceive of a system that is both that malevolent and dedicated to our destruction, while simultaneously being so tuned in to what persuades us and sufficiently considerate as to undertake the efforts to do so. Winning hearts and minds is a lot more complex and gradual than just bathing the planet in fire and blood. If AI goes to all the trouble of creating such a persuasive soft pitch delivered by such an articulate & disarming spokesbot... well, that is a pretty subtle noodge in terms of bending history to its unfeeling will to power. I’m listening... encouraged and optimistic. Kinda cool. By 2019, i thought I might be spinning down the hatch on my fallout bunker.
If they act and behave just like humans. If they perform their job as intended - represent your views politically and behave human, does it matter if they are AI? If they are really that smart we wouldn't be able to contain them anyway.
The true bold idea and revolution would be to solve WHY there's a need for so many laws. Answer: pull back how much and what government needs to do and return it back to the localities and people. Think about it: The more tasks and duties that are uploaded to government the more need for laws to govern those duties. This requires more votes, multiple steps to get to a vote, different bodies to vote, etc. There's a reason why you can't keep changing the laws, you end up not being able to prosecute and to live up to the laws. This means an ever complex legal industry where lawyers are increasingly needed to either nitpick to prosecute or to defend. You lose stability and drive up costs of living.
The reason there are so many laws is that information (order of physicalities) grows. In modern times it grows exponentially, which is why the options multiplie also exponentially. Hence you need more laws. I hate it, but that's how it is if we want to still go forward as humans.
Good idea. But i´m not sure the resulting decisions wouldn´t ultimately be bad for the economy and /or the environment. Sometimes the people as a whole are just too stupid to see longterm effects and are too focussed on themselves... That said politicians right now are not really better so maybe it doesn´t matter...
True. But everything in this world has negative and positive side effects. We can only eliminate them by finding them. As he said, if u start implementing this on smaller isolated cases, over time, we will find solutions to even those seemingly unsolvable problems.
@@sebastianwiesendahl5348 instead of telling people they are wrong, why not be productive and tell them why they are wrong. If anything it seems as if your opinion is the uneducated one.
Leads back to the never-ending political problem: Do I (Or my avatar) vote for my personal best interests, or for what's right? The avatar won't take that decision out of your hands, and most people will just avoid making it.
basic needs would be met first for all people to live and survive well - doable - the current system prevents this int its inefficiency and unobjective to superstition, traditions, and ignorance - Ai would be able to process information at one mullion times the speed of hymns and have access to all information to make best decisions
I agree, there needs to be a set of fundamental principles which guide the decisions of the AI. Otherwise people with minority views or who are in the minority will lose out. The question is then how do we come to these guiding principles.
There really is no such thing as true AI(artificial intelligence) it is always CI which is (Collective Intelligence) yet presented to people as AI to make it sound more like computer thinking. When computers learn it is still CI as it learns from prior examples (collective experience) and than uses that knowledge to predict results. So this idea of having Avatars we teach to be us is good but it would be open to so much abuse, because who says we will just teach it to be a good us, we can also teach it to be a bad us, lol.
@@cyber4joy it's the same as voting isn't it. You can vote (or not vote at all) in such a way that the representative you directly (or indirectly) voted for is not what you want.
My idea was similar but without the algorithm/AI part and i still like mine more. Create a platform, a better user-interface where people vote on topics or laws and factual pros & cons are provided and must be checked before voting. Every week there's a new topic and the rest is left to the chosen politicians but when they mess up, the public can demand a vote on the issue and it then becomes a topic.
The key is that you can build AI that isn't self interested, because self interest is what drives abuse of power. A genuine political ai would be incorruptible. The core challenge (apart from the technical aspect) would be making the system tamper proof. How can we rely on a system made and deployed by self interested humans to be genuine and not self interested, or secretly controlled by the ones who deployed it? I have been talking about ai governance for about a year now, I thought the idea was too obscure to show up in a Ted talk, but it makes a lot of sense. I especially like the end of the video where he says you don't deploy the system at the top first, but instead implement it in smaller communities and build from there. That's definitely the true vision right there.
I think many people are now thinking that democracy needs improving in some way. But rather than leap to this or any solution, I would like to see a comprehensive analysis of the problem we are trying to solve. What is it that government needs to do? What kinds of decisions does it make? How would these decisions need to be executed? How can any system decide what is in the interests of the majority? What involvement do citizens want to have in decision-making? Once you have a clear understanding of requirements and what good looks like, then you can start to build solutions which might be partly/fully automated.
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
@@highseassailor so if someone proposed increasing the school or military budget by ten fold you wouldn't have a say about it even though it was your taxes they were using to pay for it? You do get that a lot of bills are hundreds of pages long and written by lawyers in a way that even other lawyers often have trouble understanding right? Like a lot of bills are not even written by anyone in the government, but by legal teams working for lobbyists who then get a politician to submit their proposed bill as their own. Using your logic, you seem to be a clear example of the sort of people that shouldn't have a say.
A human always would be vulnerable at the temptations that the power provides, only a self-conscious A.I. could be both unbiased and knowledgeable enough to lead. @@highseassailor
....and the Bible don't forget the bible runs my whole life every law there covers everything even parking tickets the only book or intelligence we need written by God!
Politicians are a thing for a reason. Only people should vote, because only people should or can understand people's issues. If someone doesn't want to take the small step to vote in an election, then they clearly don't want or deserve to have their views represented.
With your own software agent(s), you'll be voting more, you'll have to check if it works like you want to. And clearly politicians don't understand people's issues, or we wouldn't be having such a mess of a system ... so we might as well replace them and see if things improve (if not, change the approach, etc).
One of the worst ideas ever...lets solve our political apathy by giving up all power to some "thing" even easier to manipulate and corrupt than a politician.
Was nobody else watching the day the guy in charge of Diabolt said publicly that they are able to make their voting machines produce any result they wish? 3 days later, Arnold Swartzenegger got on tv and ecplained that the reason he had all the Diabolt voting machines licked up in warehouses because California was NOT going to have a recount. Diabolt voting machines are still used widely across the nation.
No, the thing is just a system. The problem is not the algorithms. They could relatively easily be made safe. The way I see it, it raises another, much more fundamental level. Politicians don't exist just to manage our votes. They also exist and function as experts. I don't know if it's best to invest $1 billion in a new highway or if they should be invested in education instead. Part of what politicians do is becoming educated on topics just like that. Of course, they will always disagree since there are positive and negative consequences for any choice. But their opinions are better educated than ours, which means they won't make as bad choices as we would. That's part of the problem I had with Brexit. Some of the voters said that they voted to stay because they feared the change, while others were the opposite and said it would be nice with a change. Surely, you don't want people like that to decide a question that will have enormous impacts on your life? You'd ask an expert for help, just like you ask an expert for help if you need heart surgery. You don't just go to your neighbour's house and ask them to do it for you. So why would anybody think that your neighbour, or yourself, could make the right decision on Brexit? It's infuriating.
@@DirtyPoul first of. The arrogance to think we could control and hamper a true AI is astoundingly naive, secondly, all we have to do to improve voter education and decision making is to revamp and then fund our schools. Yes, do some work ourselves, not look for the next tech toy to think for us. May as well all kill ourselves if we dont want the struggle of life but to be merely s biological cog.
@@mwfmtnman When you say "true AI" I take it that you're referring to a general intelligence, right? But this is not general intelligence. It's a narrow AI not dissimilar to something like AlphaGo. There is no reason why it should suddenly take over the world like an unsafe general AI could. I think this AI system could be very helpful. Change it a bit and it could be made to gather the information from experts that could then be used to challenge the views you hold. For instance, if you're against nuclear energy because you're scared of accidents or living near radioactive material, it could question your opinion by showing you relevant data of exactly how unsafe nuclear power is in comparison to other sources of energy. Or if you're a huge proponent of nuclear power, it could question that as well by looking at the economical side of the equation where nuclear is not always such a great choice based on where you live. In sunny areas, solar might be a better choice, while wind might be a better choice in windy areas. This could be used in any political area. I think that's important to note since what is proposed in the TED Talk stand in opposition to that and seems to ignore the important part of politicians that is their role as experts on policies.
As political systems obviously fail, it becomes increasingly clear why that is. And as that becomes clearer and clearer, the idea of an algorithm that learns how to represent is becoming more and more plausible. This talk will be relevant for a long time! But I see a dual there for AI ethics more generally; technology is built to empower people. Thus algorithms in business should be automated representatives as well. They should represent the valid ethics of the people whom they are built to empower.
Whom Can We Trust If No One Is Trustworthy? One of my favorite quips from Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is when Tom is defined as “a glittering hero…the pet of the old, the envy of the young,” and there were “some that believed that he would be President, yet, if he escaped hanging.” With these few words, Twain captured the essence of leadership in our world. Those who get to the top are the fiercest, most determined, and most ruthless. Today, the latter quality has become so intense that we can no longer believe our leaders, and certainly not trust them to have our best interest in mind. I am not accusing any leader in particular, or even leaders as a whole. It is simply that in an egoistic world, where people vie to topple one another on their way to the top, the one at the top is clearly the one who trampled over and knocked down more people than anyone else. Concisely, to get to the top in an egoistic world you have to be the biggest egoist. So how do we know whom to trust? We don’t know and we cannot know. All we know is that we are in the dark. In a culture of unhinged selfishness, any conspiracy theory seems reasonable, while truth is nowhere to be found. When every person who says or writes something is trying to promote some hidden agenda, you have no way of knowing who is right, what really happened, or if anything happened at all. The only way to get some clarity in the news and goodwill from our leaders is to say “Enough!” to our current system and build something entirely independent. The guiding principle of such a system should be “information only,” no commentary. Commentary means that information has already been skewed. Information means saying only what happened, as much as possible, not why, and not who is to blame and who we should praise. Concurrently, we must begin a comprehensive process of self-teaching. We have to know not only what is happening, but why we skew and distort everything. In other words, we have to know about human nature and how it inherently presents matters according to its own subjective view, which caters to one’s own interest. To “clear” ourselves from that deformity, we must learn how to rise above our personal interest and develop an equally favorable attitude toward others. This is our only guarantee that our interpretation of things will be even and correct. Once we achieve such an attitude, we will discover that the bad things we see in our world reflect our own, internal wickedness. Our ill-will toward others creates a world where ill-will governs, and so the world is filled with wickedness and cruelty. Therefore, all we need in order to create positive leadership-and to generally eliminate ill-will from the world-is to generate goodwill within us. When we nurture goodwill toward others, we will fill the world with goodwill. As a result, the world will fill with kindness and compassion. By changing ourselves, we will create a world that is opposite from the world we have created through our desires to govern, patronize, and often destroy other people.
Software agents will never work because someone unknown to you will always have the ability to update the code and even if that persons integrity was unquestionable their account will always be open to compromise and will be a hot target.
@@taidi4038 open source. As you said. If there is a problem found, white hats will correct it. Black hats will compromise it. It's still a human question than. So even though it's technically an AI, it's really just voting as you would based on your predefined terms, and won't vote outside that. It's a closed system.
That's the problem that blockchain solves, you can change your software, if you don't talk the protocol it will split the chain, until some chain dies. The problem is, centralization, when you need everyone to be on the same system it doesn't work, it works for bitcoin because it isn't coercive, you can't make anyone run your rules, but democracy is about making others do things for you.
As a student of history and philosophy, it really bothers me how much people underestimate the value of politicians. The negative aspects of everything is what jumps out at us.
I also don't get why some people are so quick to trust an AI over a human being. I mean, sure, humans have bias, they are emotional, and are sometimes irrational. But, at least its a human being that understands what it is to be a person. I would rather trust a person over an AI because I can't trust an AI to know what's best for me, even if it can, what it thinks is best for me might be harmful to me. For example, what if I'm a person who smokes and does drugs and an AI is given responsibility over what happens to me. What if the AI looks at my behavior and says "this person is a net negative and should not be given any more care"? My point is, at least people have the ability to empathize with others.
There's also the fact that human beings with biases of there own are the ones to programme and instruct the AI's software. And there's no realistic way of holding those people accountable for any of the machine's flawed decisions or conclusions that rely on data supplied by prejudiced sources..
@@chidigoziem1482 Thats a very good point, there will still be a designer who makes the initial machine, and that machine will fall into the same traps as the person who designed it. There is also the idea that none of this is possible in the first place. I mean, we haven't even really discovered what makes us sentient, let alone creating more sentience with metal parts and silicon. I just have a hard time understanding what makes people jump to the conclusion that a world with super advanced AI will be a utopia.
I'd argue the problem in our current system isn't with bandwidth, but is instead with what that bandwidth is used for. For example, many people consume a level of news media that allows them to be informed about the issues. However, the problem is that much of the news media is of poor quality, so the time spent listening/watching/reading the news is misused. In other words, if journalists did their job properly, then the general public would be more informed on the issues, and better equipped to make educated decisions. With that in mind, let's give democracy a real test by pushing for improved journalistic standards and see how far that takes us.
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy. Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!! Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes! Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on? "But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo 6,536 - 9 a day 3,548 - 5 a day 329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone??? My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further. Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point) "Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws! P A for president, 2020!
@@highseassailor "I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote" that's literally fascism. Voting is a right not an obligation.
I like the idea, it's unique, modern and tantalizing. It would also solve the hidden in plain site truth that no one ever talks about; our founding fathers represented about 33,000 people per district. Now-a-days, that number is 700,000 in populated areas!! However, there is a very simple solution that can work much sooner and can be used as a test for further expansion. We the people need to take the veto power away from the president. One man should never have the power over anything, I say when a bill has passed both the House and Senate, WE THE PEOPLE should have the ability to veto it.
My main issue here is not the automation, but the problem of tyranny of the majority. Even if we could accurately create our own virtual politician, at some point there is a vote, and having a 51% approval will ignore the other 49%.
He is right on one thing: one of the problems with democracy is bandwidth, but... Automating our power to communicate our opinion, giving it over to AI, is to actually lose control entirely. Who programs the AI? Who controls the AI? Politics isn't a question of technology, it is about communicating, interchanging thoughts and experiences, having feelings of commitment and responsibility, rights and freedoms. These are emotions, not electrons. The other side of politics is trust. Politics is in a crisis because people don't trust the systems, nor the people in it. Why? They have proven to not be entirely trustworthy. So, the road to making more trustworthy systems cannot rely on a solution that takes our power even further from the individual. We need to retain control over our own minds. There are lots of suggestions in this realm, and I for one, believe it is time to take the things out of politics that create unnecessary strife and conflict. Instead of politics being a game for big egos, let it become an arena for solving public problems. Instead of politics being mudslinging between proponents for different ideologies, let's focus on what result we want before finding ways of getting there. Democracy has one huge problem today. We manage it like a meta system for politics regardless of ideology, not as a form of government. We have forgotten that democracy is an ideology in itself, one that permits the most open style of society. There are lots of different ideologies, in themselves collectivist and totalitarian, but we invite intolerant ideologies to be part of the tolerant and open society. Of course there are trust problems, of course there are conflicts and of course there are always the looming risk of someone hi-jacking the system. But to give the power to AI is to give our power to an unknown entity without even having been threatened and coerced to do it.
I think an even better guage for direction, would be to read the happiness/satisfaction levels of the general public. Realise which zones are feeling under catered for, and the algorithms must work to force funds Into the schools and library programs, hospitals. The way it is now, is as though the wealthy even get more governmental assistance than the minimum wage workers, even though they don't need it. There are definitely some things AI can be placed completely in control of. Yes not all decisions. I really think happiness should be the most important thing to act on, but humans are selfish and power hungry. There needs to be that impartial AI.
The problem here is, just like Social Media, all hard to understand software systems are prone to abuse and hacking, because very few people understand how exactly it is working and everything is hidden behind the cute interface.
Sushrey Srivastava you'd be surprised how many people can code and work with neural network AI software. There are even a few open source neural network programs that you can play around with yourself. Plenty of new software is open source, meaning anyone can edit it or look at how it works. Open source software prevents a single person or entity from having complete control over a market or useful algorithm.
My RUclips Recommendation AI has now introduced me to the idea of delegating political power to AI. Beautiful
Love this
Matrix is real
Lol
Now that you're woke, you might disappear
Mirio Togata Yeah, screw that. (obviously)
You had me at "Replace politicians..."
And this is the problem. Letting a machine vote on our behalf, if we didn't think things through. Making Longterm decisions made by peoples current preferences is horrifying. That really would be loke the jungle. But I know what comes next here. I am just a critic who has no open mind for new ideas.
P A
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
Milton Friedman, Dave Rubin.... sheesh🙄
@@walperstyle
the part where you believe that studying them would be education.
@@walperstyle
"Free Market Capitalism" only works Hypothetically. in the Real world, some may call it "corporatism" but it's always Naturally destined in that direction.
Another issue to consider before implementing a program like this is the fact that, nowadays, our social media accounts are influenced heavily by advertisements and algorithms to keep attention. The advertisements and algorithms will directly be influencing how our avatar votes.
Yeah, but you could create best-practice, research-based, evidence-based solutions to increase the chance your AI assistant is voting based on what you want, and not based on what is influencing you.
People will always have agendas, and they will always try to influence people. But we can design systems that address that.
i mean that also applies to our current democracy YOU are influenced so ur avatar would be, the solutions would probably be to cut off these algorithims and adverts
I say run a small scale experiment in a small town first
Probably not a bad idea, municipal level government would be a safer environment too as the power is inherently quite limited often with little or no actual legislative power but seeing if it can effectively manage the prioritisation and resource allocations tasks at a local level, which lets face it is the majority of the municipal authorities workload, would give some idea if it's even remotely ready to be considering giving it legislative influence.
I say go big and run simulations on supercomputers
Come to #Detroit
We just got out of bankruptcy but now coronavirus is gonna turn us into 3rd world
I'm trying to hustle some of the money we have before its leaves
That's a good Idea
@@thanhvinhnguyento7069 Why not both
If people don’t have to argue their beliefs on particular issues, they don’t get a chance to have their opinions changed.
Good point, in most parliaments they usually have a debate before voting on an issues. That's less likely with the direct vote.
A good argument for a minimalist direct democracy without the AI representatives.
@J Colton Idiots that think those with knowledge, wisdom, and reason lack beliefs should think before they talk.
But that could be achieved with slight modifications to the process like having a forum and an AI directing the debate.. Imagine your phone (or whatever will take its place) asking you questions and debating your answers (on others' behalf).. An hour of this everyday for everybody is now like a chore.. This allows for unprecedented scale of debate while still being a direct democracy (actually enabling it)..
@@himanshugarg6062 But if people are compelled to do it, will they really put honest thought into it?
This does not solve the brain wash problem. (Manufacturing consent)
I think it could at least mitigate. Depends on the implementation.
If the system would not treat all the votes equally, but based on a complex multidimensional personal rating,
it could consider personal biases and tendencies to be brainwashed.
@@RavenAmetr no, it wouldnt. The people who want your vote will find a way to buy it or convince you to give it, period. Democracy IS THE PROBLEM
at least it's a step forward.
@@kandysman86 you are correct in spirit, but the popular misunderstanding of terminology is tragic. The problem is populism, which means Majority Rule. Voting by majority empowers the most popular politicians to be above the law, this directly creates a ruling class we call Politicians. The ancient Greeks had this problem, they called it Oligarchy when popular voting created these rulers which divided society. The Greek system that solved this was called... Democracy! Except Greek Democracy did not use voting, their government was elected by Sortition. So why don't we use Sortition instead of Voting? Because the rulers have convinced us that it is bad, and ruined the real meaning of Democracy: It's not voting, it's government by the people aka Sortition
There can be only ever be the illusion of democracy in an oligarchy run society.
The problem with our current democracy is that people are largely ignorant about topics that don't have a direct and noticeable impact on their own lives, and they are easily influenced/manipulated by others. This doesn't really solve any of that. It's interesting in theory, but I really can't see how it would be an improvement over our current system. Instead of choosing representatives that we don't know enough about, we'd be voting directly on issues that we don't know enough about.
Trusting an algorithm to determine our vote has been proven to not work, just look at any social media website. RUclips is a prime example of how these algorithms fail. It just feeds you the same thing over and over again until you manually search for something different. They guide you towards a bubble based on what you search for, and then the algorithm doubles down on that type of content to trap you inside of it. This prevents people from seeing other topics or alternate perspectives that they may actually agree with. Wouldn't this political automation just end up doing the same thing? If you don't decide yourself, it would have to compare your known perspectives with those of others, and could end up voting contrary to what you would actually want had you bothered to learn both perspectives.
You sound like a nervous politician. great
The ambition is to be able to make people less ignorant by presenting them with vetted information about relevant topics in a graspable manner. One reason people are currently uninformed and ignorant is because it is difficult to get details of various bills and also of statistics that could be a good input to make sound decisions (i.e. bad UI as he says).
Well, I would rather trust a non partial A.I made up of MY own politcal thoughts than trust some inherently biased carreer politician more concerned with his/her own day to day in the political game. And some of what you write above is more an attack on the flaws of democrasy itself rather than the A.I programs
Honestly it may actually help with some of those problems on a cultural level. Yeah, no one is knowledgeable about all of the fields which are required for governing a country, but I feel like a large part of that is apathy and disengagement with our current political system. People don't feel the need to be educated in our current system because that won't change anything. If people had more personal responsibility in government, and if AI assistance made getting informed about relevant issues easier, we might see that change.
As for your issues of trusting algorithms, that's why his suggesting of open-source and a free marketplace of algorithms is promising. You aren't stuck with one algorithm, but are free to choose whichever one you think best represents you. You should be able to test out a dozen algorithms before choosing one to make sure you're happy with how it works.
Seems every poll i see 29% of people polled dont know and or dont care.
Citizen-made-politician: "Siri, please start a peace process with our enemy"
Siri: "Sure, I will start a piss process with our enemy"
😂😂😂
😜😝☺
Keep Summer safe
Exactly. There still is no such thing as artificial "intelligence". We don't even know how to scientifically solve the hard problem of consciousness.
Suri will just surrender, everything, she's a little lazy, I'm finding out.
It sounds like he's suggesting we go full digital right from the start. I think that's a mistake. Let's start analog:
Make politicians wear body-cameras.
and Lie Detectors
I like this - yes, you can be a politician for life but you must always wear a livestreaming body cam
Or do like Robin WIlliams said. Make our politicians wear jackets like NASCAR drivers, with all their sponsors on their jackets.
or release in the "wild" nanocameras that follow politicians
Good luck trying to get it pass the congress without massive riots and countless deaths.
"Maybe we need better user interface for democracy?".
Truly an idea worth sharing, great talk.
Absolutely. And to stop looking upon politics as some kind of game or pastime, making it about finding the optimal solutions to common problems.
Let's make an anime about it first.
Psycho pass?
The Magi computers in Neon Genesis: Evangelion
Gordon GM psychopass is not AI lol sybil use brains of criminally asymptomatic people
wow
This sounds really good but i have one question.
How can we make sure whomever is writing the code and the organisation who make it wont make deliberate changes with hidden agenda?
opensource code?
9:55
My answers Datasets made from population surveys
Open source code, distributed and decentralised
@@sidkumar5135 its easy to rig and misslead survey's.
replace politicians? what next lawyers?
Omg that would literally be heaven
To-do list:
1) Create SKYNET
2) Elect SKYNET as president.
💥🔥
3) Server SKYNET from your birth to your death.
win/win!! :-D
You can try thinking outside the simplistic boxes that movies place our minds into. This has nothing to do with skynet.
@@ghipsandrew Which is why I no longer watch movies. Entertainment used to bond people and families which then further enforces said boxes into ones and the groups paradigm of thinking and the movie is not reality to begin with.Measured and responsible chemical deprogramming and constant learning and ego checking is the only way to grow intellectually and not allow the system or its control mechanisms to affect you.
3) Destroy SKYNET
Thanks for providing me with the outline for my future dystopian novel.
Uh oh
A pessimist!
Yeah I can already see the structure of it and it is terrible the world is being harmed in every aspect like coders becoming tyrants and companies becoming powerful like this is not a democracy this is in fact against democracy
@@cannedfrootloops7803 if you’re a coder or a software programmer it is not your responsibility or duty to be a political figure it is your job to be a computer logician that is it if you want to be in power give up your programming and become one
3 years late but I think the doctor who audiobook "spare parts" already took this idea
There are some serious Black Mirror vibes
I just watched the one with the bees and watching this straight after isn't really the best mix
And not in any good if there was ever one.
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
Because Black Mirror is based on reality.
Kinda in the name.
in democracy YES
It seems this still does not fix the problem of ignorant people making decisions. After all the input for the algorithm is made by a person that most likely is not qualified to understand the issues. Right?
How do you define an ignorant person in this case?
@@PiraNov As he says in minute 2:55... decisions people would have to make on topics they know little about. This is a problem with our current system, and as I understand it, a problem still in the mechanism he proposes.
And worse, it empowers them. Like they might not have that much power if they only voted for politicians who know at least a bit of reason, but if a software representative would think "how would this idiot vote on this issue he's never heard of or cares about", it's even more dangerous.
Yeah, that's why you will probably need multiple parts to this process and multiple layers of abstraction. An agent for your character / views and a system that understands the bills. The agent will know you, the voting system will know about the bills. So in more detail something like this:
- an abstract version of your political views, wishes, focusses, readiness for compromise (your agent or homunculus)
- clearly defined bills with quantifiable choices formulated in an unambigous way so that even an AI can understand it (not talking about AGI, just AI)
- more complex issues would require either to break the bill down into smaller parts or have experts "translate" it for the AI (has to be an open source process)
- risk analysis for consequences of a bill (either by AI, community or by experts or all of those)
- a system to rate the compatibility between your agent and a certain vote
If the project starts as a political advisory software first we might be able to get enough data to get good enough results.
Of course this would not stop emotional and outraged people from overriding the system with uninformed spontaneous votes. But my naive hope in this would be, that by having an agent less people would vote uninformed, because you could read the gist of a bill and its consequences (summarised in a user friendly and understandable way). And if you override it it could show you why it thinks that choice might be out of character for you (and it should zap you :P).
Yeah. Our biggest problem is the movie Ideocracy slowly becoming real. It's fucking scary.
Direct Democracy like Switzerland has it, is a good way to govern and have politicians under controll.
However, people have to be educated and must know, that voting is not a choice only,but a responsibility.
Not much good for USA then, where ignorance and stupidity are desirable traits.
Switzerland is a small country with less poverty than in most of the countries in Europe. So you have a lot of educated citizens, cause they can afford education and the government has not too many people to educate. That system you have works for you. Not for others. Look what happened to England. They have to leave the EU, because their citizens weren't educated enough to understand the consequences of a brexit.
@@rinmartell2678Martell: Has nothing to do with the size of a country, it is the attitude and pride. There are two quotes which may help you to understand: "for things to change, you have to change" and "if you really want to do something, you will find a way-; if not, you will find an excuse"! both by Jim Rohn
NB: Small countries have fewer people to pay taxes and contribute to the success then bigger countries have.
@@felixniederhauser7799 Size has a great deal to do with it . Switzerland is a tiny majority white and very wealthy .
It is very simple to educate a few like minded .
The lone example of Switzerland has many qualifiers left out .Here's a couple
Very religious
Cost of living highest in the world
No free health care
Low taxation
Iconic banking system
94% white
12 yr to citizenship
Small means tested meager welfare system and much more
Size is in fact crucial
This sounds pretty good, but there is one main problem. Direct democracy is dangerous. Remember the saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
Checks and balances are required to prevent majority rule from becoming mob rule over the minority.
That's why all democracies have constitutions and rights that cannot be overruled by a simple majority. For instance, changing the US constitution requires a significant supermajority of 2/3 in both the House and Senate. But the most important aspect is probably that generally, people are not evil. Most people are benevolent and would what they can to improve the world. Most politicians share that same ideal. Not all, but most. But none of them are flawless, and some of them are malevolent.
My point is that a direct democracy has nothing to do with that lamb and wolves qoute. It's about not having a constitution at all and letting anything pass. No democracy is like that, and there's not reason why a direct democracy would be any different.
@@DirtyPoul I'm not sure what your point is. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy so you're comparing apples to oranges.
If we were a democracy, California would write all the laws.
The founding fathers wisely avoided such a scenario by limiting the voting power of any one state over the others.
And funny enough, you mentioned the need for 2/3rd majority to amend the Constitution. In Franklin's wolf and lamb anecdote, they would have the super majority needed to eat the lamb. Thus the next line, "Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Note democracy does not equal liberty.
This we already have right now, even with the wolves are the minority.
@@walshmt84 I apologise for the late reply. I initially read your reply on my phone and wanted to reply when I got back to a keyboard, but that never happened.
The US is a constitutional republic, but it is also a democracy. One does not exclude the other. Sure, you could make an argument that the US is moving towards a plutocracy and away from democracy, but that's a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with it being a constitional republic.
Surely, you know the meanings of the terms?
"If we were a democracy, California would write all the laws."
No, what? That would be a type of aristocracy where a certain class of citizens gain all power over the rest, despite being a tiny minority.
California is the most populous US state, but that doesn't mean they need to hold absolute power for the US to be a democracy. Let me make an example. Do you believe Germany is a democracy? If so, why? Nordrhein-Westfalen is the most populous German state, but they don't hold absolute power. So why would California need to hold absolute power for the US to be a democracy? Your argument doesn't make any sense.
"The founding fathers wisely avoided such a scenario by limiting the voting power of any one state over the others."
They chose to give some power to the states as entities rather than letting the population as a whole decide. Personally, I think they went too far since their system has ended up introducing some anti-democratic side effects. One of them being that votes in swing states are much too important in presidential elections. The states already hold a lot of power through the Senate. Changing the presidential election to a popular vote would be much more fair. Add a run-off system like in France and you'd also allow 3rd party candidates to have a fair chance.
"Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
That sounds all well and good in theory. But does it actually work in practice? What are the citizens supposed to do? They have done nothing so far while their country becomes more and more plutocratic through lobbying and corruption. Funny enough, that's one of the reasons why Trump was elected. But what happened? He simply doubled down and took it further than ever by appointing wealthy businessmen to key political roles. And what does the "well armed lamb" do? It has done nothing so far, and I'm not counting on that changing any time soon.
"Note democracy does not equal liberty."
Your point being?
@@DirtyPoul First, I just want to say thank you for a thoughtful, respectful response. It's hard to find good conversation online. I appreciate it.
I think we might be using different definitions of democracy.
As I understand it, democracy is majority rule. The act of voting is democratic. So the US was designed with democratic elections. In this sense we could describe the US government as a democratic republic. We could describe Germany as democratic under this. I honestly know very little about the organization of German government.
So the question seems to be is Democracy actually a good thing? It depends on your goal. When I read the constitution the intent seems to be an attempt to organize a government that maximizes liberty for the individual.
Now how this gets applied has changed over time.
Senators for example were not originally elected. This was to give the states a voice in government in the form of the Senate. Today they are elected democratically. Are we more or less free now?
That's a whole conversation aside, but I would argue we are less free now.
In a straight democracy, the popular vote wins. No checks, no balances, nothing.
So if we're voting on an agriculture bill. What does someone living in downtown Manhattan, or LA know about farming? So lets say we're voting on a bill that will give farmers access to less restrictive regulation making their job easier. All the people in the city say no, because they are concerned about the environment. While the farmers all vote yes, because they understand how it works in practice. The farmers lose.
This is why California would decide all our elections for us. Because with their population, just a few key cities would outvote the rest of the country on issues that may or may not affect them.
California has no idea what kinds of laws work best in Colorado, or Wyoming, or Maine, or Florida. The point being we need a limit on how far Californians votes go. So we create states. So the votes of California only decide what the law is in California, and on a federal level they don't get more say than any other states.
This is the purpose of the electoral college. To limit the capacity of one or two states to decide an election on their own through sheer population. No it's not perfect. But it limits direct democratic power for a good reason.
What should people do? Educate themselves and then vote. Ideally. I believe knowledge is by far our most powerful weapon, but of course Franklin was talking about guns, and the second amendment.
Should people use violence to overthrow the government? Eventually, if needed. But as long as your vote means something, I don't think we've hit that point. The point wasn't that we should turn to violent revolt when things don't go our way. The point was that the government should fear it's citizens, and not the other way round. Of the people, by the people, for the people.
So my point to Democracy does not equal Liberty, is that I believe Liberty is more important, and it's all too often curtailed under the guise of democracy. Straight democracy, without any check or balance becomes mob rule. Minorities don't matter in a straight democracy. Alternative opinions don't matter in a straight democracy. This is why republican principles are important (the system, not the party).
This is an idea I have been discussing with my friends, finally someone got the balls to say it, bravo!
I was also thinking about it and doscussing but response was like I am crazy
It doesn't mean it is a good idea. I don't think his statements against direct democracy hold much water I think it is more effective and efficient than coming up with futuristic technology, I believe trchnology is very overrated and it is distracting us from what other alternatives have to offer
Problem is ignorance , solution is extremely cheap and extremely quality education , growing curiosity.
This was one of the unforeseen side effects in the former Soviet block. Private busyness was not only a dirty word - it was a crime. Also IQ was uses to assign probability for “betrayal of communist ideal” - the higher the IQ - the higher the risk - the lower you go in the social scale. Except if you were also a criminal psychopath - then you rise to the highest ranks in leadership.
Anyway, education (either providing or receiving) was the only refuge for smart people keeping them sane.
That’s why there and then was the best ever educational system that humanity ever had. That’s why Russians are unsurpassed till those days in fundamental sciences - the ones that don’t make you rich ;) but smarter.
I agree, but a bigger problem is how quickly the powerful can dumb an entire nation down. I've heard 1 generation. Not a stretch when I look around my country.
Debt Miner , the powerful don’t need to do much - the regular Joe-6pack will gladly take the slippery slope. The powerful have to pich-in for the grease ;) subsidized cheap food and entertainment always covers 110% of the majority (mob) needs. Not sure what can you (or anybody for yah matter) do since it’s a “victimless crime “. Actually the so-called victims are not screaming from abuse - they are moaning in delight. I am not sure what percentage of the population would choose the “red pill”
Don’t try to save someone who doesn’t ask to be saved - you only will get in trouble! Try to find a way out of this insane asylum for yourself
Finland,future for education.
@@kulishev I agree on all accounts. I have no intention of saving anyone. They're so reliant on this ugly system, 'helping' might harm anyway.
This could potentially be used against us, though. No?
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
Anything from outside could be used against you. The only thing you could ever trust is our inner self.
Everything some1 invents can be used against the masses. The question is will they find the way, or will they be able to do it.
@boson96 cool rhetoric
With blockchain everything would be traceable and transparent I'd imagine. You'd probably be able to run all kinds of reports to get insights into the decisions made on your behalf and the effects, I'm sure it would very insightful and perhaps mindset changing.
Democracy 2.0 will need several design iterations. A replacment system could be run in parallel with the current system to flush out inevitable problems.
Yeah I'm very much in favor of combining the strong sides of artificial and human intelligence. Also there should be a really strong verification protocol to prevent any risk of a cyber attack. Maybe a block-chain based system would work? I'm not well informed on those kind of systems.
The longest lasting empire was the Chinese, they failed when they implemented democracy and when they refused to trade with other nations. Democracy is not a good system. Would you trust a room of random people to make a complex task such as a surgery on yourself? Nope, you would hire an expert, like an expert surgeon. And people aren't good at voting for the best expert surgeons, they vote for the most popular
I love the definition of the problem: cognitive bandwidth!
As for the solution, personal AIs are needed that are independently controlled by individuals-not corporations.
You will never get that. They will always have a way to control it and we will never be the wiser. Just look at the phone in your hand. Do you really think that you have control over how that operates, no matter what options you turn on or off. People need to wake up, our overlords are not here to help us, they are here to cull us down to a controllable number. They don't need us anymore. They can automate almost everything that they need or want now. They also don't need more money, they have it all. What they need now is to kill most of us before we wake up. It is a game to the finish now. Don't believe me, listen to their speeches and policies, it is all there in plan sight.
Winston Churchill said the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. That's why the US is a republic. Read the comments for confirmation.
"A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or propertyof the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of stateis not a hereditary monarch."
If USA is not democracy, then oligarchy or autocracy.
And so is France, but you'll see no French arguing that France is not a democracy. Why? Because like the US, France is a democratic republic. The US would only cease to be a democracy the day elections stopped having an impact. And in that case, it wouldn't become a republic, it would become an autocracy. That's what happened in Germany when Hitler ceized power soon after his election.
@@mykolassakalauskas3374 it's an oligarchy
It's hilarious people keep parroting this "US is a republic, not a democracy" bullshit. Y'all literally vote for your president, your senators and your representatives. If that ain't democracy, I don't know what is.
Twitter's bias show that automating the processes will still hold algorithmic bias. At the end of the day it's the same problem
Me: " I think a bridge needs to be built across the river."
HAL: "I'm sorry Dave. I can't let you decide that .."
Just kidding - love the idea.
AI: We will build a bridge out of you.
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
Yuk Hal is a fiction of peoples fears a model T minus
P A bruh....
It's an innovative idea! I love how he's thinking outside the box.
Yeah outside of the 📦 stupid. There is a reason why many countries abondond the idea of voting computers. Go fight againts voting computers. Inform yourself at EFF.org or CCC.de and other sources why voting computers are harmful.
No no.. it's a good idea. You confuse voting machines with - as he said - an Open Auditable system
P A
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
@@martinagiuslia Dumb and Stupid are the same thing......you really believe that corruption can not be automated. Please stop your embarrassing yourself and this speaker is embarrassing himself, everything can be hacked, or bought, bribed corrupted. Please stop, when you give someone or something else your power of choice or decision you become vulnerable to tyranny . Learn from History as it repeats its self no matter the advancement in technology.
He did not consider the concept of Perfect Representation. Conceptually, his AI agent is just another representative in Perfect Representation, which would be safer, more flexible, more backwards compatible, and more ... representative ... than what he proposes. Search for "Perfect Representation Amendment". (I tried to provide a link but such collaboration was not allowed.)
Plato called this democracy, it was the weakest form of government in his book Republic. He was right when he said it leads to tyranny and anarchy every time, often the have nots against the haves and other minorities. The framers of America's constitution didn't give us a democracy, what they gave us what is called a federal, non- parliamentary, democratic republic. We already have representatives speaking for the people, and the Senate to speak for various states, not the people, (the Senate was not even directly elected by the people in the 19th Century, but elected in the state legislatures). Under this guy's plan those who write the code to count the votes pick the winners, we've already seen that algorithms on RUclips can be used to silence opinions and people, the people running the system don't like. This is a goofy idea,that will never happen and that's a good thing. As Stalin said "It's not who gets the most votes it's who counts the votes".
You must hate open source software then. But, actually, it's probably the best software we have since it can be vetted publicly, so that password manager, or encryption software, or whatever, that you use can have thousands of people vet the code and determine if it's doing what it says it does, or if it has some. If people helped fund some great open source software, it could lead to a great product. Where could that money come from? In part, from all the money saved from the political circus that costs millions per year. (In the US, it's like billions per year. What a waste of fucking money.)
So your point is "closed source software is bad for something like this," which is kind of a "duh" thing to anyone who understands software. I don't say that to condescend, but to point out that you have a very strong opinion on something you don't seem to fully understand (based on your statements). That's common, but unwise. To anyone who understands software, having no transparency for something that is created for personal or public interest is inherently a bad idea, and of course we wouldn't do it.
Also, old mate in the video mentioned that you could see the results of how the AI assistant was voting, and choose to retrain it to vote differently. Like anything, if 'Popular Open Source AI Assistant 42' wasn't doing it's job well, it'd get bad reviews, and either improved or a new one would be created. Forks would be created. Eventually, we'd go from handweaving to an automated factory, designed by humans.
The idea has more promise than what you make out.
This is not possible any time soon. We'd need an AI with superhuman knowledge of human psychology in order for it to 'know' how an individual would vote on a particular bill if he/she were to have full knowledge of the issue.
Otherwise, the proposed AI would likely just vote based on the silly, incoherent 'political' template of views it perceives in society. Even worse than having politicians.
Have you read the conversation that was published with Google's LaMDA AI? I find it far from incoherent or silly. I know you wrote this 2 years ago. But real philosophical complex isues were discussed. Its really exciting.
Nah man, humans just need to program AI and make it understand what conditions make humans unhappy, which are objetive things like famine, labor mistreatment, physical and psychological stress, if AI can understand that a great part of humanity suffer from this stuff, on a low or higher level, it should conclude at some point that those who govern, and are leaders of the people should be replaced by AI, depending on the actions and contribution to society they have had, since humans for thousands of years have had the opportunity to redeem themselves, but it has the ego of men mattered more than the collective well-being, so the AI with all the information collected should provide us with a better future, without this emotional sh*, that create wars and fortune to a reduce group of people
We don´t need an avatar that projects our idiocy, we need more knowledge and wisdom in order to get rid of it!
I'd vote for that.
Get "reed" of that. Knowledge and wisdom huh?
grover reed between the lines
@@shaegrover9516 Your digression adds nothing to the actual debate, still, thanks for calling it, I shall edit it and correct it. Being English my fourth language sometimes comes at a linguistic accuracy cost, but I should not fall lazy on my spelling, as it does not help in forwarding my point.
Nevertheless, due to the rhetorical follow up question you make, I do find myself oblige to ask you how many languages actually you speak?
He already said, we can't know everything, we are gonna be overloaded with information. Maybe on major issues we can agree, but on less popular and more sophisticated issues we kinda stupid ( generally). So maybe by our preference we can let those "avatars" help us decide. It's obvious dangerous, but still as he said, at the end; Political realm is destination, but beginning will be library and toilet line in house)
If there's ever a matrix prequel trilogy,
parts of this talk should be playing during the opening credits. . .
Hahahaha so true
Look up Matrix 4. If you follow the entire thread of the story you will see the Terminator and the Matrix are linked...
Luke Wilder Yep.
The machine world was started by irrational politicians trying to kill machines.
AI run government? WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?!
Make policy, not run the country.
@@billyrigby4839 Exactly, the AI wouldn't be enforcing or interpreting the law; it would just write it. If things go wrong, there is always the option to turn it off. That said, it would be everyone's best interest, in my opinion, to keep these and all AI systems separate from each other.
Cough cough SKYNET. Haha.
@@JiberishMCUTUBE That wouldn't work. If you can just turn it off any time "when laws are wrong" we would need someone who decides when laws are considered wrong. And then the whole point of this system is gone, because now we have a small group of people deciding over those laws made by the AI again.
AI waifu for president!
Thank you Cesar for your time your interests your motivation and your foresight its pleasure to hear something new
I've been writing something similar for the past years, and I might have a "different" proposal, It's great to see the fears and doubts of people in the comments to tackle those first.
- The important thing for everybody reading is to NOT forget that politicians NEED to be replaced or at least the System MUST change.
In a nutshell: AI assisted democracy
A nascent technocracy.
exactly . he is misleading us with "automation" - terrible .
@@EuDouArteHipHopArtCulture21 automate my balls
An when the AI decides what is better for us without our knowledge ? and what if it decides we don't need to have the power to decide anymore?
It sounds more like an AI administered democracy
It's a good idea. The Devil is in the details. For me, the algorithm couldn't be based on what I read and listen to because much of that is stuff I disagree with while trying to learn other points of view. The legislation is another area that could get dicey; Overall though, it's a good starting point and worth investigating and running trials.
I agree with what he said, this concern of yours is just a minor detail.
event if the AI was 80-90% accurate it might still end up being more accurate representation of people than the 20-40-60% of vote participation.
A major problem I could see happening is what happens to unrealistic ideas that people hold, when two things people really want can't be both accomplished.
No its not. Its not just a question of minor details. There a many flawed assumptions to start with.
Voting computers are not a good idea. Automating that process is worse. Letting AI write good laws in your interest without understand what it means to be alive - good luck.
Sorry folks, but get an 5-10 years education of what AI is and can do nowadays and you would not even remotly consider this to be a good idea.
@@sebastianwiesendahl5348 I am a computer engineer I find your opinion on AI invalid. You can totally automate this, this could be implemented in 5-10 years and by the progress we ve made in the past decade this looks possible, even more so when you have a huge pool of data to work with such as a billion people worth of data an AI could do wonders.
it doesn't need to understand what it means to be alive, I question your understanding of AI honestly
@@sebastianwiesendahl5348
talking like AI has Consciousness. Lol😄
democracy is inefficient in a mire of ignorance and ideologies
Oh yes, I really want all my views on everything in a computer system. That would never get abused...🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
I know right. It's not like VPNs are a thing.
Sam Catterall - “you appear to be voting from Latvia. This system does not allow that.”
Not if woke people control it.
@@uilium Yeah, like google...do no evil.
I was at a computer conference and some lawyer was doing a talk. He said "We employed the world's top experts in cyber security and our system is now unhackable." ... The whole conference burst out laughing and the guy looked embarrassed.
The NSA gets hacked regularly, multiple cyber security companies get hacked on a regular basis.... If it's on a network, you can exploit it.
I like your idea, Mr. Hidalgo, but I'd prefer it if we were given time off (so reducing the working hours per week to say 30 and make that mandatory!) to get informed about politics (I do my best now, but with more time I could also do more here) and that we can make our own decisions (so the politicians would exist in my idea, but they would only make suggestions for new laws and regulations and the people would then vote on them directly and do so once a week)!
An intermediate stage could be limited direct democracy---referendums, ballot measures, propositions, etc---but much more often, while we still delegate to representatives.
To be frank though, as an American, many of our current representatives don't have much specialized knowledge; rather, they have corporate financial backing.
Skynet approves this message.
Hollywood approves your fear
This idea carries a lot more vulnerability for the public than it does to power. It would most likely be owned, designed and run by powerful tech companies and used for datamining and ultimately manipulating the public consciousness. Interesting that he doesn't touch on any of these practical matters.
As I mention elsewhere, there's a lot of power in choosing which bills and laws are tabled, which aren't, and how they are described and framed.
Be very, very wary about this.
Lekim Nines You are absolutely right. This crook describes the near future of a global dictatorship. It is really sad, but we will inevitably live it. Masses prove no resistance to Big Brothers invasion in all parts of their life. It makes me angry that TED gives speech to this parasite..
Again, open source.
@@chriswarren3046 yup, and blockchained, so every software analysis firm, or computer geek, can see it and continuosly suggest improvement, through a constitutional system, somewhat like Debian does
Hey guys!👋
If you are intrested in Political systems to its ideologies, then I highly recommend you to visit the GovLOGUE community in Discord.
Its a place where people can openly talk and discuss about such important questions without the left wing⬅️🔵 & right wing➡️🔴 biases, plus, even allows its members to create their own government system♻️ if they have any!
Its a new server that is just recently created, and most of all, its free for all who are intrested to join!🤝
So do hop in and form some dialogue in GovLOGUE!!!✊
*LINK: discord.gg/Np8kVvT6
For the mentioned downsides you doesnt need the AI... It is basically now.
The solution makes for a good case to solve the participation issue, but there's an inherent flaw in the assumption that "more participation" (software or physical) will ensure better functioning of a democracy.
Much like Socrates pointed out, the real dilemma is who get's to have a say at all, on what merit and if everyone should have a say at all? (this has and will obviously garner more debate and criticism).
There's a spectrum of people, some who might be spending hours researching and informing themselves to train their avatars (in this case) VS some who will be going by popular thought and some who just won't care. Plus, if you replace elected representatives with a personal representative, there's no guarantee that your AI avatar will put national interest ahead of their personal interests. Like I said though, it WILL address the participation issue and the resultant outcome will be a real metric of selfish desires VS collective good. Much like any other idea, we'll never know until it's tried, so the real question is how badly do we need an alternative and what are we willing to risk for it?
Brilliant. If more people spent time on something like this as they do playing games or being on Facebook the world would be a better place. If we could integrate gaming and social media into something like an app that seems like a logical means to achieve the outcome we all need.
This could be amazing. Could be terrifying.
In the end there needs to be very clearly defined parameters around what can be voted on and what can’t. Meta law is unimaginably important in these waters.
I agree with this. The potholes in my neighbourhood might finally get fixed.
Dude, my city in Canada is ranked 5th worst in the country. Taxes eh? Where exactly does it all go...
Plant a small tree in the pothole, so people freak out. The government will respond quickly by removing tree and filling the pothole.
@@stoneheadguy7 Also iy better be a bamboo, because it grows super fast
This doesn't fix the original problem of vulnerability though...
Amazing! The imagination and creativity it takes to come up with these ideas is astounding! Good or bad we need more creative ideas like this!
Thank God we don't have a democracy in the USA
Right, thank dog you have your fascist oligarchy instead..
Ray Garrett, Jr. Yeah, but what does God have to do with anything? 😁
kaxitaksi 😆
Indeed. Freedom is really overrated. Long live the glorious ruler.
You have kakistocratic oligarchy... rule by the most idiotic individual nominated, with most benefits going to the top 1%.
I like the idea of a process that could review our collective thoughts on a subject and propose laws to support them. I think Jasondavisvids makes a good point with the idea that our present views could be changed. Perhaps a mechanism that could initiate a debate on difficult topics, with AI providing counterpoints and possibly scientific data to educate the user.
Came into this pessimistic, but open-minded, left reconsidering the entire future of politics
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
P A a bold idea would’ve been to make this its own comment and not a reply no one asked for
A radical idea with no fool-proof mechanisms. Dismissing important questions and thinking wishfully is not the solution. They need to be addressed because even the smallest issue can break the entire system.
Right from when the idea started I was wondering how my agent would represent me accurately, and even more so about the time I need to spend training. Also how accessible is this piece of tech? This is reality and not pessimism.
Finally, an incomplete proposal.
what is a better alternative?
When he mentioned pessimists he was talking about you. 🤣 He literally told you how it could be started on a small scale to test its viability and you still just want to shoot it down. 😂
I can understand what he meant by that. I was just pointing out the way important questions were dismissed without being addressed.
To be clear, I was not criticizing the idea. I was criticizing the proposal.
@@Useernaamee This is surely an idea that can be worked with, which would then require a lot of loopholes to be closed.
I personally think that a better solution is by incentivising political participation or even more effective by disincentivising nonparticipation. Say something like you have to watch a webinar and vote for a set of relevant bills every month and doing so would give you a small percentage tax waiver.
To eliminate bad politicians, a more stringent criteria should be used to set the quality bar high. Any criminal background has to be rejected.
Lastly, if 76% of people are not turning up for voting of Mayer, it's because most of the issues at that level are of no significance to their life. Not exactly the same as cognitive bandwidth issue. So the solution could also be finding the issues most people actually face or care about while ensuring participation of relevant population.
Sounds like a "Black Mirror" episode...... LOL
Mike Staihr it will be one soon
Big time.
I had this idea and was thinking that I'm the only one who believes in AI .
That's my dream !
I have one idea like that
I've had some similar thoughts (coming from a web development background) and on how to solve major world problems. So I'm happy to have stumbled upon this video and that other people are thinking about out-side-the-box solutions because democracy is clearly broken and flawed. Doesn't take a genius to put that together.
No system will ever be perfect because at the core, the biggest flaw will always be the human element.
I do think that education could definitely help alleviate the problem but politicians are just too fucking wrapped up with pocketing dough and resorting to third grade level of mud slinging to really care about actually allotting the proper money to education. It doesn't benefit them to have a more educated populace. So it's always a catch twenty two.
I am certain that this solution could work if humanity is willing to actually go down this road. The human mind (despite its pitfalls) is incredible. I am certain that humanity could work out the kinks if we put our minds to it. But the problem is that there are far too little actual intelligent humans willing to undertake something like this versus the dumb majority of population who are uneducated and apathetic to the process of democracy; not to mention the most important road block of all, politicians whose interests would be threatened by this.
I fear that the only way to solve the democracy problem is to have a revolution that could range anywhere between somewhat peaceful to really fucking bloody. Politicians are certainly going to cling to power with every fiber of their body and mind and it'll take a herculean effort to purge this country of the political cancer it has.
3 years later.......
Till date, I think it is the best and most radical use of artificial intelligence in the present world.
For decision making by using machine learning algorithms, we can evolve a political system based on direct democracy that would be a revolution all around the world.
Karan Sharma me too. I love AI and watch all kinds of stuff on it. This seems really practical 👍
Yes, let’s trust the only entity with more power than politicians, big tech. Wow, great idea!!
Chris M The whole world needs an effing EMP. This elitist crap is getting nuts.
The question is: Who do you trust more, a politician or a machine?
Patrick Oliveira Skynet 2020!
Chris M He did say open source. There is a difference in the Wikipedia runs than FaceBook.
Chris M He did say open source. There is a difference in the way Wikipedia runs than FaceBook.
When AI starts making deep fake videos convincing us to make them politicians... Stay woke people.
Stay woke? Lol. Thats ok buddy, i steer clear of insane ideological ignorance masquerading as some kind of deep "woke" understanding of reality.
Or maybe you were being ironic. I hope so.
@@kandysman86 Woosh!
@@kandysman86
I'm almost sure he was being serious... or "woke" ? 😬
If human genocide is the AI end game, this is some pretty cushy trim on the train to that camp. Kinda untenable to conceive of a system that is both that malevolent and dedicated to our destruction, while simultaneously being so tuned in to what persuades us and sufficiently considerate as to undertake the efforts to do so. Winning hearts and minds is a lot more complex and gradual than just bathing the planet in fire and blood. If AI goes to all the trouble of creating such a persuasive soft pitch delivered by such an articulate & disarming spokesbot... well, that is a pretty subtle noodge in terms of bending history to its unfeeling will to power. I’m listening... encouraged and optimistic. Kinda cool. By 2019, i thought I might be spinning down the hatch on my fallout bunker.
If they act and behave just like humans.
If they perform their job as intended - represent your views politically and behave human, does it matter if they are AI?
If they are really that smart we wouldn't be able to contain them anyway.
Ted had the slogen "Ideas worth spreading" not
"Ideas worth killing"
Ideas worth spreading are not necessarily the same as the ideas you like.
The true bold idea and revolution would be to solve WHY there's a need for so many laws. Answer: pull back how much and what government needs to do and return it back to the localities and people. Think about it: The more tasks and duties that are uploaded to government the more need for laws to govern those duties. This requires more votes, multiple steps to get to a vote, different bodies to vote, etc.
There's a reason why you can't keep changing the laws, you end up not being able to prosecute and to live up to the laws. This means an ever complex legal industry where lawyers are increasingly needed to either nitpick to prosecute or to defend. You lose stability and drive up costs of living.
We the people elect
These politicians ...
Only to turn their backs on
Us! The people whom put them in power!...
Were forgotten...
The reason there are so many laws is that information (order of physicalities) grows. In modern times it grows exponentially, which is why the options multiplie also exponentially. Hence you need more laws. I hate it, but that's how it is if we want to still go forward as humans.
Good idea. But i´m not sure the resulting decisions wouldn´t ultimately be bad for the economy and /or the environment. Sometimes the people as a whole are just too stupid to see longterm effects and are too focussed on themselves...
That said politicians right now are not really better so maybe it doesn´t matter...
True. But everything in this world has negative and positive side effects. We can only eliminate them by finding them. As he said, if u start implementing this on smaller isolated cases, over time, we will find solutions to even those seemingly unsolvable problems.
No, its not. Its the worst idea I ever heard of. Get yourself an education on AI, voting computers, language theory and political systems.
@@sebastianwiesendahl5348 instead of telling people they are wrong, why not be productive and tell them why they are wrong. If anything it seems as if your opinion is the uneducated one.
It's the problem with democrasy, rather than this specific idea, isn't it?
Exactly, look at Brexit for example.
What could possibly go wrong? Slap forehead now!!!!!
Yup, we'll need you pessimists too! Or not. :)
Leads back to the never-ending political problem: Do I (Or my avatar) vote for my personal best interests, or for what's right? The avatar won't take that decision out of your hands, and most people will just avoid making it.
basic needs would be met first for all people to live and survive well - doable - the current system prevents this int its inefficiency and unobjective to superstition, traditions, and ignorance - Ai would be able to process information at one mullion times the speed of hymns and have access to all information to make best decisions
I agree, there needs to be a set of fundamental principles which guide the decisions of the AI. Otherwise people with minority views or who are in the minority will lose out.
The question is then how do we come to these guiding principles.
It's not a problem of communication or bandwidth about a problem of people's hearts.
Sounds a lot better than the current UK democracy
See "tyranny of the majority" for more information.
I like the idea of direct democracy, but AI will eventually do a better job at governing us to a better future.
There really is no such thing as true AI(artificial intelligence) it is always CI which is (Collective Intelligence) yet presented to people as AI to make it sound more like computer thinking. When computers learn it is still CI as it learns from prior examples (collective experience) and than uses that knowledge to predict results. So this idea of having Avatars we teach to be us is good but it would be open to so much abuse, because who says we will just teach it to be a good us, we can also teach it to be a bad us, lol.
@@cyber4joy it's the same as voting isn't it. You can vote (or not vote at all) in such a way that the representative you directly (or indirectly) voted for is not what you want.
@@cyber4joy not yet...
I have been talking about this for 2 years.
Me too.. it means a lot people are thinking the same..we are one organism and that eventually will happen to improve the planet
My idea was similar but without the algorithm/AI part and i still like mine more. Create a platform, a better user-interface where people vote on topics or laws and factual pros & cons are provided and must be checked before voting.
Every week there's a new topic and the rest is left to the chosen politicians but when they mess up, the public can demand a vote on the issue and it then becomes a topic.
The key is that you can build AI that isn't self interested, because self interest is what drives abuse of power. A genuine political ai would be incorruptible. The core challenge (apart from the technical aspect) would be making the system tamper proof. How can we rely on a system made and deployed by self interested humans to be genuine and not self interested, or secretly controlled by the ones who deployed it?
I have been talking about ai governance for about a year now, I thought the idea was too obscure to show up in a Ted talk, but it makes a lot of sense. I especially like the end of the video where he says you don't deploy the system at the top first, but instead implement it in smaller communities and build from there. That's definitely the true vision right there.
I think many people are now thinking that democracy needs improving in some way. But rather than leap to this or any solution, I would like to see a comprehensive analysis of the problem we are trying to solve. What is it that government needs to do? What kinds of decisions does it make? How would these decisions need to be executed? How can any system decide what is in the interests of the majority? What involvement do citizens want to have in decision-making?
Once you have a clear understanding of requirements and what good looks like, then you can start to build solutions which might be partly/fully automated.
Who writes the laws? The ones who control the algorithms...definetly not "us"
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
@@highseassailor so if someone proposed increasing the school or military budget by ten fold you wouldn't have a say about it even though it was your taxes they were using to pay for it?
You do get that a lot of bills are hundreds of pages long and written by lawyers in a way that even other lawyers often have trouble understanding right?
Like a lot of bills are not even written by anyone in the government, but by legal teams working for lobbyists who then get a politician to submit their proposed bill as their own.
Using your logic, you seem to be a clear example of the sort of people that shouldn't have a say.
A human always would be vulnerable at the temptations that the power provides, only a self-conscious A.I. could be both unbiased and knowledgeable enough to lead. @@highseassailor
....and the Bible don't forget the bible runs my whole life every law there covers everything even parking tickets the only book or intelligence we need written by God!
Politicians are a thing for a reason. Only people should vote, because only people should or can understand people's issues.
If someone doesn't want to take the small step to vote in an election, then they clearly don't want or deserve to have their views represented.
With your own software agent(s), you'll be voting more, you'll have to check if it works like you want to. And clearly politicians don't understand people's issues, or we wouldn't be having such a mess of a system ... so we might as well replace them and see if things improve (if not, change the approach, etc).
One of the worst ideas ever...lets solve our political apathy by giving up all power to some "thing" even easier to manipulate and corrupt than a politician.
Was nobody else watching the day the guy in charge of Diabolt said publicly that they are able to make their voting machines produce any result they wish? 3 days later, Arnold Swartzenegger got on tv and ecplained that the reason he had all the Diabolt voting machines licked up in warehouses because California was NOT going to have a recount. Diabolt voting machines are still used widely across the nation.
WE NEED SOLUTIONS NOT PROBLEMS MAN. did u even listen?
No, the thing is just a system. The problem is not the algorithms. They could relatively easily be made safe. The way I see it, it raises another, much more fundamental level. Politicians don't exist just to manage our votes. They also exist and function as experts. I don't know if it's best to invest $1 billion in a new highway or if they should be invested in education instead. Part of what politicians do is becoming educated on topics just like that. Of course, they will always disagree since there are positive and negative consequences for any choice. But their opinions are better educated than ours, which means they won't make as bad choices as we would. That's part of the problem I had with Brexit. Some of the voters said that they voted to stay because they feared the change, while others were the opposite and said it would be nice with a change. Surely, you don't want people like that to decide a question that will have enormous impacts on your life? You'd ask an expert for help, just like you ask an expert for help if you need heart surgery. You don't just go to your neighbour's house and ask them to do it for you. So why would anybody think that your neighbour, or yourself, could make the right decision on Brexit? It's infuriating.
@@DirtyPoul first of. The arrogance to think we could control and hamper a true AI is astoundingly naive, secondly, all we have to do to improve voter education and decision making is to revamp and then fund our schools. Yes, do some work ourselves, not look for the next tech toy to think for us. May as well all kill ourselves if we dont want the struggle of life but to be merely s biological cog.
@@mwfmtnman When you say "true AI" I take it that you're referring to a general intelligence, right? But this is not general intelligence. It's a narrow AI not dissimilar to something like AlphaGo. There is no reason why it should suddenly take over the world like an unsafe general AI could.
I think this AI system could be very helpful. Change it a bit and it could be made to gather the information from experts that could then be used to challenge the views you hold. For instance, if you're against nuclear energy because you're scared of accidents or living near radioactive material, it could question your opinion by showing you relevant data of exactly how unsafe nuclear power is in comparison to other sources of energy. Or if you're a huge proponent of nuclear power, it could question that as well by looking at the economical side of the equation where nuclear is not always such a great choice based on where you live. In sunny areas, solar might be a better choice, while wind might be a better choice in windy areas.
This could be used in any political area. I think that's important to note since what is proposed in the TED Talk stand in opposition to that and seems to ignore the important part of politicians that is their role as experts on policies.
As political systems obviously fail, it becomes increasingly clear why that is. And as that becomes clearer and clearer, the idea of an algorithm that learns how to represent is becoming more and more plausible. This talk will be relevant for a long time! But I see a dual there for AI ethics more generally; technology is built to empower people. Thus algorithms in business should be automated representatives as well. They should represent the valid ethics of the people whom they are built to empower.
Whom Can We Trust If No One Is Trustworthy?
One of my favorite quips from Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is when Tom is defined as “a glittering hero…the pet of the old, the envy of the young,” and there were “some that believed that he would be President, yet, if he escaped hanging.” With these few words, Twain captured the essence of leadership in our world. Those who get to the top are the fiercest, most determined, and most ruthless. Today, the latter quality has become so intense that we can no longer believe our leaders, and certainly not trust them to have our best interest in mind.
I am not accusing any leader in particular, or even leaders as a whole. It is simply that in an egoistic world, where people vie to topple one another on their way to the top, the one at the top is clearly the one who trampled over and knocked down more people than anyone else. Concisely, to get to the top in an egoistic world you have to be the biggest egoist.
So how do we know whom to trust? We don’t know and we cannot know. All we know is that we are in the dark.
In a culture of unhinged selfishness, any conspiracy theory seems reasonable, while truth is nowhere to be found. When every person who says or writes something is trying to promote some hidden agenda, you have no way of knowing who is right, what really happened, or if anything happened at all.
The only way to get some clarity in the news and goodwill from our leaders is to say “Enough!” to our current system and build something entirely independent. The guiding principle of such a system should be “information only,” no commentary. Commentary means that information has already been skewed. Information means saying only what happened, as much as possible, not why, and not who is to blame and who we should praise.
Concurrently, we must begin a comprehensive process of self-teaching. We have to know not only what is happening, but why we skew and distort everything. In other words, we have to know about human nature and how it inherently presents matters according to its own subjective view, which caters to one’s own interest. To “clear” ourselves from that deformity, we must learn how to rise above our personal interest and develop an equally favorable attitude toward others. This is our only guarantee that our interpretation of things will be even and correct.
Once we achieve such an attitude, we will discover that the bad things we see in our world reflect our own, internal wickedness. Our ill-will toward others creates a world where ill-will governs, and so the world is filled with wickedness and cruelty. Therefore, all we need in order to create positive leadership-and to generally eliminate ill-will from the world-is to generate goodwill within us. When we nurture goodwill toward others, we will fill the world with goodwill. As a result, the world will fill with kindness and compassion. By changing ourselves, we will create a world that is opposite from the world we have created through our desires to govern, patronize, and often destroy other people.
This guy just saw the supreme intelligence in captain marvel
Software agents will never work because someone unknown to you will always have the ability to update the code and even if that persons integrity was unquestionable their account will always be open to compromise and will be a hot target.
What if the system is open source?
@@taidi4038 open source. As you said. If there is a problem found, white hats will correct it. Black hats will compromise it. It's still a human question than. So even though it's technically an AI, it's really just voting as you would based on your predefined terms, and won't vote outside that. It's a closed system.
I'm sure this problem would be addressed of the best are put on this
Blockchain enryption....
That's the problem that blockchain solves, you can change your software, if you don't talk the protocol it will split the chain, until some chain dies.
The problem is, centralization, when you need everyone to be on the same system it doesn't work, it works for bitcoin because it isn't coercive, you can't make anyone run your rules, but democracy is about making others do things for you.
As a student of history and philosophy, it really bothers me how much people underestimate the value of politicians. The negative aspects of everything is what jumps out at us.
As long as the politicians represents the people, I'm aboard. But many places, they are in the pocket of someone with a thick wallet.
Vedic Prime You are absolutely right.
I also don't get why some people are so quick to trust an AI over a human being. I mean, sure, humans have bias, they are emotional, and are sometimes irrational. But, at least its a human being that understands what it is to be a person. I would rather trust a person over an AI because I can't trust an AI to know what's best for me, even if it can, what it thinks is best for me might be harmful to me. For example, what if I'm a person who smokes and does drugs and an AI is given responsibility over what happens to me. What if the AI looks at my behavior and says "this person is a net negative and should not be given any more care"? My point is, at least people have the ability to empathize with others.
There's also the fact that human beings with biases of there own are the ones to programme and instruct the AI's software. And there's no realistic way of holding those people accountable for any of the machine's flawed decisions or conclusions that rely on data supplied by prejudiced sources..
@@chidigoziem1482 Thats a very good point, there will still be a designer who makes the initial machine, and that machine will fall into the same traps as the person who designed it. There is also the idea that none of this is possible in the first place. I mean, we haven't even really discovered what makes us sentient, let alone creating more sentience with metal parts and silicon. I just have a hard time understanding what makes people jump to the conclusion that a world with super advanced AI will be a utopia.
I'd argue the problem in our current system isn't with bandwidth, but is instead with what that bandwidth is used for. For example, many people consume a level of news media that allows them to be informed about the issues. However, the problem is that much of the news media is of poor quality, so the time spent listening/watching/reading the news is misused. In other words, if journalists did their job properly, then the general public would be more informed on the issues, and better equipped to make educated decisions. With that in mind, let's give democracy a real test by pushing for improved journalistic standards and see how far that takes us.
Being think about this for a long time. Glad I found the video
Nothing wrong with democracy when it's being practiced properly.
tell that to socrates
Someone really likes the ending of iRobot
A bold Idea to replace politicians AND Cesar Hidalgo with direct democracy.
Instead of creating an "avatar" and clearly supporting more of the "big brother is watching" paradigm, we could be less naive than the speaker, and support direct democracy. WITHOUT AI!!!
Point # 1. Don't like voter turnout percentages? I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote. Guaranteed, 90% or more of the population votes!
Point # 2. Too many ideas to vote on?
"But this idea is naive, because there are too many things that we would need to choose." -Cesar Hidalgo
6,536 - 9 a day
3,548 - 5 a day
329 - 3 a WEEK!!???!?!?!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow! Basic math, anyone???
My simple point here is that these are not overwhelming numbers of things, or bills, or laws to vote on. Children make more than 9 important decisions a day, yet adults are so incapable? How many important decisions did you make yesterday? Lets take this a step further.
Point # 3. Vote in your areas of expertise. (this supports reducing the already low numbers found in my 2nd point)
"Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week, on topics they know little about." -Cesar Hidalgo
People only get to vote on issues related to their expertise. Not a nuclear physicist? How about at least a Bachelors degree in chemistry? Congratulations!!! You don't have to vote (you're NOT ALLOWED) on issues related to nuclear energy! Never served in the military? YEA! You're not voting on the next funding bill for the DOD. Not a teacher? Not attending or have no children in school? Your not voting on upcoming education laws!
P A for president, 2020!
@@highseassailor i just though it a quip.
P A why are you copy/pasting this under other peoples comments 🤔
@@highseassailor "I support the creation of a law that mandates a combined tax increase and benefit decrease penalty for those who miss their scheduled vote" that's literally fascism. Voting is a right not an obligation.
I just have privecy concerns with that type of data collection
I like the idea, it's unique, modern and tantalizing. It would also solve the hidden in plain site truth that no one ever talks about; our founding fathers represented about 33,000 people per district. Now-a-days, that number is 700,000 in populated areas!! However, there is a very simple solution that can work much sooner and can be used as a test for further expansion. We the people need to take the veto power away from the president. One man should never have the power over anything, I say when a bill has passed both the House and Senate, WE THE PEOPLE should have the ability to veto it.
My main issue here is not the automation, but the problem of tyranny of the majority. Even if we could accurately create our own virtual politician, at some point there is a vote, and having a 51% approval will ignore the other 49%.
I was wary when he mentioned the steam-powered Jacquard loom => unemployment.
He lost me at 10:45, with the fatal words, "trust me."
I’m a Republican but I trust Bernie and Ocassio-Cortez more than a AI machine
Welcome comrade
At this point it is impossible to install human ethics into cyberware.
Human error is useful to remind us to be care full.
He is right on one thing: one of the problems with democracy is bandwidth, but... Automating our power to communicate our opinion, giving it over to AI, is to actually lose control entirely. Who programs the AI? Who controls the AI? Politics isn't a question of technology, it is about communicating, interchanging thoughts and experiences, having feelings of commitment and responsibility, rights and freedoms. These are emotions, not electrons.
The other side of politics is trust. Politics is in a crisis because people don't trust the systems, nor the people in it. Why? They have proven to not be entirely trustworthy. So, the road to making more trustworthy systems cannot rely on a solution that takes our power even further from the individual. We need to retain control over our own minds.
There are lots of suggestions in this realm, and I for one, believe it is time to take the things out of politics that create unnecessary strife and conflict. Instead of politics being a game for big egos, let it become an arena for solving public problems. Instead of politics being mudslinging between proponents for different ideologies, let's focus on what result we want before finding ways of getting there.
Democracy has one huge problem today. We manage it like a meta system for politics regardless of ideology, not as a form of government. We have forgotten that democracy is an ideology in itself, one that permits the most open style of society. There are lots of different ideologies, in themselves collectivist and totalitarian, but we invite intolerant ideologies to be part of the tolerant and open society. Of course there are trust problems, of course there are conflicts and of course there are always the looming risk of someone hi-jacking the system. But to give the power to AI is to give our power to an unknown entity without even having been threatened and coerced to do it.
I think an even better guage for direction, would be to read the happiness/satisfaction levels of the general public. Realise which zones are feeling under catered for, and the algorithms must work to force funds Into the schools and library programs, hospitals. The way it is now, is as though the wealthy even get more governmental assistance than the minimum wage workers, even though they don't need it. There are definitely some things AI can be placed completely in control of. Yes not all decisions. I really think happiness should be the most important thing to act on, but humans are selfish and power hungry. There needs to be that impartial AI.
That would be executive AI-or perhaps an AI City Manager system of government, right?
How would this affect accountability for decision making?..
The robot did it!
Who programmed the robot?
That's not something an AI should be concerned with and neither humans. The AI will rule till the end of time.
Finally, a way to get the free stuff and no taxes I always wanted!
It's a very insane idea, but I don't mean it in a bad way. Interesting talk
Fantasy audiobook series 'Cradle'. I wouldn't mind a mind spirit either :)
Loved it , I’m all for it and I’m sharing on Facebook...that is where most sheep graze... I will be “watching this place” with hope of seeing it grow
Am sure Facebook would just love to help this process along. LMAO.
Well, the internal blockchain of ethereum permits to create an automated democracy, so is a matter of time that AI can be used as elections
Thought the same thing.. technology is there
@@MagicMoshroom yes indeed
So...it could run itself W/O interference or Humans trying to make it a scam?
This is insanely dangerous
Had to check if i was watching Black Mirror a couple of times
The problem here is, just like Social Media, all hard to understand software systems are prone to abuse and hacking, because very few people understand how exactly it is working and everything is hidden behind the cute interface.
Sushrey Srivastava you'd be surprised how many people can code and work with neural network AI software. There are even a few open source neural network programs that you can play around with yourself. Plenty of new software is open source, meaning anyone can edit it or look at how it works. Open source software prevents a single person or entity from having complete control over a market or useful algorithm.
Man we must be right I was discussing EXACTLY this yesterday