The problem with algocracy is someone has to define the laws in which the algorithm has to base it's decisions. And if someone is writing those laws, how can we know they're impervious to corruption.
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
12 points (80.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9542 readers
544 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ipso custodiet custodiet.
No system, made or operated by humans, is impervious to flaws; by design, we have our shortcomings. However, the challenge lies in creating the least flawed system, safeguarding it from our biases. This involves crafting a system that automates away the potential for corruption and greed, yet maintains room for human intervention to prevent a rigid "computer says no" outcome.
By using open-source development methods and absolute transparency; algorithms could be developed openly, visible to all. Furthermore, to make it even more user-friendly — not just for algo developers — we could employ LLMs. This would allow anyone to converse with a bot, querying about the rationale behind laws, their fairness, and so on. If perceived as unfair, one can present their argument to the bot, which then channels the feedback into the system for potential amendments.
The entire procedure would then be under continuous peer review.
Though the author addresses the flaws of the proposal of algocracy, he conviniently forgets the fault which is the downfall of all the will thought out plans. Human emotions, greed and ambition.
Just as democracy in authors words is nothing more than a beauty pageant. The destruction of democracy are those reasons, and will also be the destruction of algocracy.
Author also side steps philosophical questions regarding AI such as the trolley problem.
Until these problems are solved, algocracy might be even more destructive than what democracy is currently.
You are correct, I did not address these, merely for the sake of brevity. I am acutely aware of human greed, it's a feature not a bug 😅. In fact, algocracy is the weapon of choice here because of exactly this.
Algocracy aims to reduce the impact of human emotions, greed, and ambition. Calling democracy just a 'beauty pageant' underscores the search for a more stable system, one less affected by our natural flaws.
The trolley problem isn't exclusive to AI. They challenge human judgment just as much, if not more. What algocracy offers is a consistent platform to tackle these dilemmas based on collective societal input. The proposal focuses on AI systems overseen by human direction, reinforced by open-source principles and transparency. Furthermore, its accessibility could be enhanced by allowing individuals to inquire about the system and propose enhancements through LLM interactions.
Arguing that algocracy could be more destructive than current democratic practices is a hasty judgment. The vision is to refine and mold it, leveraging open-source methods and transparency, into the best version of governance we can muster. An iterative, ever-improving model, always under the watchful eyes of society.