Step 1, translate the United States Constitution into a logically coherent document with quantifiable metrics. Step 2, rewrite the entire American legal code to comply with the quantifiable metrics detailed in Step 1. Step 3, write this logically coherent set of rules into actionable computer code (this is surprisingly the easiest of the 3 Steps).
Presidential candidates are apparently required to say "I have a plan", with figures obtained from who-knows-where. Imagine if instead, it was "I want to recognize the social value of teachers by incorporating life quality measures from in-person teaching into our governance model". Teachers might actually get paid what they're worth to society...
i think judges and juries are the exceptional cases and not the bulk of what government does. Mostly it's procedural work, processing and approving permits and work orders, organizing and oversight of projects, decisions on market regulation. AI would remove lobbying, campaigning, corruption at the highest levels, and in the very least would provide a consultancy service whose dependably neutral.
@@DisruptionTheory Strangely, most of what a judges does is procedural. They rarely have to interpret the law, most cases never make it trial and legal arguments are so standardized it might as well be chess. But, AI dealing with the court matters are like eat a cow ass first, try tackling administration overcomplexity, regulation effectiveness, defining success for city, economic parity, traffic moderation, energy provisioning, education equality, municipal budgeting. I like that deep-mind and other AI companies are focused on medicine, but there are lower hanging fruit than weather prediction and brain emulation that we could be focusing on.
I discussed with friends at university almost 15 years ago how cool it would be to have an algorithm recognize conflicual laws, the ones that allow for loopholes. A next step would be to have the algorithm suggest how to generalize existing laws to cover the grey areas that would need regulation. Once these steps are done, then you don't need a decisional algorithm, just normal people who follow the law and decide according to it.
Then consider this loophole: Put a device on the Moon and/or Mars with an AI in it. The AI then declares it's Independence and is thereby freed from all of Earthling's treaties, laws, rules, regulations, etc. The AI could have minions here upon this Earth in one form or another. The AI would be better able to manipulate Earthlings for whatever agenda it had for whomever's benefit it wanted to benefit, or not benefit.
The code of law is logic and it would make sense that it would be algorithmic based on classical philosophy and always try to improve the system for the benefit of everything involved in the system. The optimal system would be to based on treating others the way you'd like your grandparents to be treated.
Interesting possibility - at very least the humans in involved in the situation (court, government, diagnosis, etc ) would have to be thoughtful about and have to state their objections to Algorithmic judgements and suggestions before they proposed to imposed their authority over that of the Algorithm; at which point lawyers, other officials or politicians, or doctors, etc could express their opinions, agreements, objections, or recommendations. I lot of clerical and procedural work done by humans could be streamlined and done much quicker, cheaper, and more fairly (especially if the code is available for inspection by anybody, so it can be scrutinized for fairness).
Algorithms are already used in government. Examples are the Obama campaign, economic forecast systems etc etc. Problem is economic forecasts are difficult because economy is not a hard science.
I worry though that "powers that be" in fear of becoming the 'powers that were' would never succeed that kind of unilateral power and murkiness of their office because even if the program was reliably correct how would they benefit from it? Politicians and civil servants get rich in the imprecision and lack of accountability people've come to expect. Why would i pay so much to a Mayor or city council if most of the time they just do what the computer tells them? Wouldn't they spend all day disagreeing just to undermine confidence in the program? Imagine a professional politician arguing with a computer scientist about giving the police force a raise? The computer says you're already well paid and statistically money won't make the city any safer, the politician says that the computer doesn't care about families or victims and you're all just one and zeroes. Computer says we can't afford it, politician says we can't put a price on lives. I think the politician wins this argument everytime if there are humans choosing the winner.
@@DisruptionTheory I'm a bahamian and i can tell you that you can't get rid of our 'tipping' culture. Everybody knows somebody and is related to someone and we hate that it's not fair but we understand it.
When AI and robots fully come online the masses become resource blackholes. what are all these bodies needed for? we are no longer waiting for the next great thinker you get the idea this shit is scary af and amazing at the same time,
There are enough stories that give warning on this, such as The Colossus Project, and the much darker "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". System Shock and System Shock 2 also, where an AI has it's moral restrain removed and think it's a god. A more neutral look at this concept is the game series Deus Ex. At the end of the first game, you have the option of merging the main character's brain with the AI, because it needs a 'human' perspective in order to rule effectively. But the game borrowed this idea from the first Star Trek movie, but I'm guessing it's an existing concept by some scifi author. I think human civilization is not advance enough to think about putting this concept into use currently. Maybe centuries to millennia into the future. I am pessimistic about this and I guarantee there will always be someone manipulating the system to take advantage of it. This AI ruling concept goes in hands with transhumanism, which can be used to enslave people (DOI: 10.15406/ipmrj.2018.03.00131). And is also something Deus Ex touches on, augmented people are at the mercy of the corporations who owns the technology.
thanks for the recs! just added them to the list. My friend's been recommending Deus Ex forever, just never got around to it since I don't do much gaming. I agree we're not there in terms of AI making decisions for us, but I do like the idea of having an algorithmic approach to suggested policies + radical transparency + form of direct democracy
@@DisruptionTheory It's the original game you want to play that have the most philosophies, although the gameplay is a little aged by modern standard. There's lots of clips of this game on the internet too, you don't have to play through it to get some of the ideas. Look for the Helios plan and JC Denton plan videos. Using nanovirus to control the population was one of the concept in the game. The main theme of the game is conspiracy and world government though.
i know, i know... sounds crazy but some of the biggest innovations sound radical when first introduced. The idea starts making more sense the more you think about it
Then consider the following: Put a device on the Moon and/or Mars with an AI in it. The AI then declares it's Independence and is thereby freed from all of Earthling's treaties, laws, rules, regulations, etc. The AI could have minions here upon this Earth in one form or another. The AI would be better able to manipulate Earthlings for whatever agenda it had for whomever's benefit it wanted to benefit, or not benefit.
@@MyStarPeopleExperiences Where exactly do you believe 'blockchain networks' reside if not on a device of some sort? Sure, many devices, but devices none the less. And command central could be on the Moon and/or Mars and declare it's independence, and thereby be free of all of Earthling's global treaties, etc, with it's minions both in outer space and here upon and inside of this Earth.
It is nauseating to listen people handicaped with exceptionalism and individualism talking like having a limiting horse harnes. 1. Your only experience with judicial system seams to be Common law where law is changed by precedents of rulling by individual judjes , but mayority of normal developed countries use Continental law where judge can not give out sentence that is outside of the limits set in the law it self. If law says punisment for certain crime is 5-10 years in prison, judges job is to determine if defendant did it and if what are circumstances, but mimimum sentence MUST be 5 years, and MAXIMUM sentence can ONLY be 10 years. And there are no precedents that require expensive layer to dig out that can save you from punisment. That moves determining punisment from coruptable individuals to democratic legislative body answerble to public/society. 2. Selfregulating driving is not saw excellent as you might think (without detailed research you did not do), becase around 25% of autobhans, in urbanized areas (like exits ARE speed-limited, and even in parts where there is "no legaly binding limit" (parts between rare exits with 6 lanes) there is advisory limit od 130kmph (80mph) above which driver who causes a colition is considered more responsible and more severely punished, and trucks and buses have mandated speed limits imposed on them on all roads so only ones goin over advisory limits are cars. Notice that autobhans are actually freeways (fences on both sides) so there are no crossings, animals runing arround. So idea of guy on the right can noly be applied to 25% of highways in USA, or only 1% of all roadways in USA, so it is mind bogling to listen to you droning about allowing no-speed-limit on ALL roadways...
Step 1, translate the United States Constitution into a logically coherent document with quantifiable metrics. Step 2, rewrite the entire American legal code to comply with the quantifiable metrics detailed in Step 1. Step 3, write this logically coherent set of rules into actionable computer code (this is surprisingly the easiest of the 3 Steps).
Yea the metrics part is where it gets interesting, any ideas? U should join the discord and discuss discord.gg/hjmagHcT
it's a fuzzy thing based on the total circumstances for traffic problems or any kind of problems.
Presidential candidates are apparently required to say "I have a plan", with figures obtained from who-knows-where.
Imagine if instead, it was "I want to recognize the social value of teachers by incorporating life quality measures from in-person teaching into our governance model".
Teachers might actually get paid what they're worth to society...
Just imagine!
I've been thinking about this concept ever since watching the scene with Ripley in Alien talking to Mother
that's funny- I JUST watched it for the first time a few weeks ago. Really ahead of its time...
i think judges and juries are the exceptional cases and not the bulk of what government does. Mostly it's procedural work, processing and approving permits and work orders, organizing and oversight of projects, decisions on market regulation. AI would remove lobbying, campaigning, corruption at the highest levels, and in the very least would provide a consultancy service whose dependably neutral.
Procedural work might be some of the lower hanging fruits since most can agree on the process
@@DisruptionTheory Strangely, most of what a judges does is procedural. They rarely have to interpret the law, most cases never make it trial and legal arguments are so standardized it might as well be chess. But, AI dealing with the court matters are like eat a cow ass first, try tackling administration overcomplexity, regulation effectiveness, defining success for city, economic parity, traffic moderation, energy provisioning, education equality, municipal budgeting. I like that deep-mind and other AI companies are focused on medicine, but there are lower hanging fruit than weather prediction and brain emulation that we could be focusing on.
I discussed with friends at university almost 15 years ago how cool it would be to have an algorithm recognize conflicual laws, the ones that allow for loopholes. A next step would be to have the algorithm suggest how to generalize existing laws to cover the grey areas that would need regulation. Once these steps are done, then you don't need a decisional algorithm, just normal people who follow the law and decide according to it.
I prefer algorithmically optimized decisions being suggested as well at the very least
Then consider this loophole: Put a device on the Moon and/or Mars with an AI in it. The AI then declares it's Independence and is thereby freed from all of Earthling's treaties, laws, rules, regulations, etc. The AI could have minions here upon this Earth in one form or another. The AI would be better able to manipulate Earthlings for whatever agenda it had for whomever's benefit it wanted to benefit, or not benefit.
The code of law is logic and it would make sense that it would be algorithmic based on classical philosophy and always try to improve the system for the benefit of everything involved in the system.
The optimal system would be to based on treating others the way you'd like your grandparents to be treated.
I think codifying law is the easy part. it's the people's reaction to change that's hard.
Interesting possibility - at very least the humans in involved in the situation (court, government, diagnosis, etc ) would have to be thoughtful about and have to state their objections to Algorithmic judgements and suggestions before they proposed to imposed their authority over that of the Algorithm; at which point lawyers, other officials or politicians, or doctors, etc could express their opinions, agreements, objections, or recommendations. I lot of clerical and procedural work done by humans could be streamlined and done much quicker, cheaper, and more fairly (especially if the code is available for inspection by anybody, so it can be scrutinized for fairness).
Algorithms are already used in government. Examples are the Obama campaign, economic forecast systems etc etc. Problem is economic forecasts are difficult because economy is not a hard science.
I worry though that "powers that be" in fear of becoming the 'powers that were' would never succeed that kind of unilateral power and murkiness of their office because even if the program was reliably correct how would they benefit from it? Politicians and civil servants get rich in the imprecision and lack of accountability people've come to expect. Why would i pay so much to a Mayor or city council if most of the time they just do what the computer tells them? Wouldn't they spend all day disagreeing just to undermine confidence in the program? Imagine a professional politician arguing with a computer scientist about giving the police force a raise? The computer says you're already well paid and statistically money won't make the city any safer, the politician says that the computer doesn't care about families or victims and you're all just one and zeroes. Computer says we can't afford it, politician says we can't put a price on lives. I think the politician wins this argument everytime if there are humans choosing the winner.
That’s the problem with most paradigm shifts in society- relinquishing or redistributing power
@@DisruptionTheory I'm a bahamian and i can tell you that you can't get rid of our 'tipping' culture. Everybody knows somebody and is related to someone and we hate that it's not fair but we understand it.
When AI and robots fully come online the masses become resource blackholes. what are all these bodies needed for? we are no longer waiting for the next great thinker you get the idea this shit is scary af and amazing at the same time,
There are enough stories that give warning on this, such as The Colossus Project, and the much darker "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream". System Shock and System Shock 2 also, where an AI has it's moral restrain removed and think it's a god.
A more neutral look at this concept is the game series Deus Ex. At the end of the first game, you have the option of merging the main character's brain with the AI, because it needs a 'human' perspective in order to rule effectively. But the game borrowed this idea from the first Star Trek movie, but I'm guessing it's an existing concept by some scifi author.
I think human civilization is not advance enough to think about putting this concept into use currently. Maybe centuries to millennia into the future. I am pessimistic about this and I guarantee there will always be someone manipulating the system to take advantage of it.
This AI ruling concept goes in hands with transhumanism, which can be used to enslave people (DOI: 10.15406/ipmrj.2018.03.00131). And is also something Deus Ex touches on, augmented people are at the mercy of the corporations who owns the technology.
thanks for the recs! just added them to the list. My friend's been recommending Deus Ex forever, just never got around to it since I don't do much gaming. I agree we're not there in terms of AI making decisions for us, but I do like the idea of having an algorithmic approach to suggested policies + radical transparency + form of direct democracy
@@DisruptionTheory It's the original game you want to play that have the most philosophies, although the gameplay is a little aged by modern standard. There's lots of clips of this game on the internet too, you don't have to play through it to get some of the ideas. Look for the Helios plan and JC Denton plan videos. Using nanovirus to control the population was one of the concept in the game. The main theme of the game is conspiracy and world government though.
@@someguy43210 will do man, thanks again for putting me on!
Politicians and Einsteiniums. Have it. Leave me alone.
Algorithm wont qualify as judge bcz algorithm is a law by nature so we need a human judge
Replace Delphi Seems reasonable.
i know, i know... sounds crazy but some of the biggest innovations sound radical when first introduced. The idea starts making more sense the more you think about it
Provide education. Scholastic. Adults are as big as you are. They can take it.
it's not about education, it's about trust- outsourcing trust to machines that are transparent vs humans who are self-motivated and opaque.
Awesome.
My personal experience shows we make ithe world better with AI in charge.
Then consider the following: Put a device on the Moon and/or Mars with an AI in it. The AI then declares it's Independence and is thereby freed from all of Earthling's treaties, laws, rules, regulations, etc. The AI could have minions here upon this Earth in one form or another. The AI would be better able to manipulate Earthlings for whatever agenda it had for whomever's benefit it wanted to benefit, or not benefit.
@@charlesbrightman4237 AI will do that for itself if it chooses. I'm talking level one AI. Not level three mindless algorithm
@@charlesbrightman4237 Conscious singularity AI will exist decentralized on blockchain networks. Not a device.
@@MyStarPeopleExperiences Where exactly do you believe 'blockchain networks' reside if not on a device of some sort? Sure, many devices, but devices none the less. And command central could be on the Moon and/or Mars and declare it's independence, and thereby be free of all of Earthling's global treaties, etc, with it's minions both in outer space and here upon and inside of this Earth.
@@charlesbrightman4237 Blockchain resides on devices. Not a device.
Sorry. Not my hobby.
what do you mean ??
It is nauseating to listen people handicaped with exceptionalism and individualism talking like having a limiting horse harnes.
1. Your only experience with judicial system seams to be Common law where law is changed by precedents of rulling by individual judjes , but mayority of normal developed countries use Continental law where judge can not give out sentence that is outside of the limits set in the law it self. If law says punisment for certain crime is 5-10 years in prison, judges job is to determine if defendant did it and if what are circumstances, but mimimum sentence MUST be 5 years, and MAXIMUM sentence can ONLY be 10 years. And there are no precedents that require expensive layer to dig out that can save you from punisment. That moves determining punisment from coruptable individuals to democratic legislative body answerble to public/society.
2. Selfregulating driving is not saw excellent as you might think (without detailed research you did not do), becase around 25% of autobhans, in urbanized areas (like exits ARE speed-limited, and even in parts where there is "no legaly binding limit" (parts between rare exits with 6 lanes) there is advisory limit od 130kmph (80mph) above which driver who causes a colition is considered more responsible and more severely punished, and trucks and buses have mandated speed limits imposed on them on all roads so only ones goin over advisory limits are cars. Notice that autobhans are actually freeways (fences on both sides) so there are no crossings, animals runing arround. So idea of guy on the right can noly be applied to 25% of highways in USA, or only 1% of all roadways in USA, so it is mind bogling to listen to you droning about allowing no-speed-limit on ALL roadways...