Forced self regulation… Mmm. Reputation based liquid democracy?
Something about the word forced may create a negative response in many, but are we forced to breath air for example… well if you put it like that of course we are, the alternative is we give up the ghost
My biggest concern though is how do we get from here to there, there simply doesn’t seem like enough time is available to use to regulate and put in place what is necessary.
A clue may be in ‘putting in place’ before ‘regulating’… Globalization is the process of holding up a mirror… Latency waves ripple up and down the full stack. The need for speed in the global process of introspection. Planet, know thyself…
Finding a balance between complementary opposites (full stack (1 to all)) is a pre requisite to managing sustainable growth. Can we manage what we cannot measure?
If we can create, build and commission a global digital double…
I’ll try to contribute, although I am from Portugal, but in essence it’s the idea that I’m trying to promote here in Portugal.
To me AI could be a support for faster, fair and immediately solutions.
People still be needed and could have better decisions.
Health care should be considered a priority and should be able to centralize all medical information of each person, that could be done with a centralized information where all medical exams made could be in hand of any medic, of course patients should control the access to that information.
In education system should be create a new kind of teaching, something like the Nordic System in Europe.
In security and defence should be created an system that allows the immediately exchange of information, reducing a lot a good response. In my opinion one Police is better than lot of different one.
A centralized financial system that allows a decentralized response for each minister.
A good system of analysis that allows gather information about each situation and person, the best way is to reduce all id numbers to only one.
Those are some ideas
Until we come up with a better method (than politics) to govern us, I would suggest an AGI monitoring system that requires politicians to apply parameters on all decisions. For instance, the AI could veto any decision
a) That wasn’t beneficial to every tax payer
b) Violated a code of ethics (even on a microscopic level)
c) That is detrimental to other nations or peoples therin
d) Polluted the environment
e) That willfully destroyed the environment or the life forms therein.
Just a few suggestions, but it would have to be the ‘police’ working for the people to ensure as much honesty and indiscrimination as possible. But at best, it is a band aid solution, because AI could potentially be corrupted in the longer term.
I think that corruption could be avoid by human interaction/intervention, but one solution could be done by a law that was made to several condemn any bad intention.
Yes, it can, but if AGI becomes self learning, it can learn bad habits from imperfect human politicians I think.
Just think about how many people now think fake news is real, and real news is fake. We wouldn’t want AI to run amok with those sorts of actions.
I don’t know if it is possible, but an AI only learn what people program and may be a counsel could be watching the code and avoid bad consequences.
AI only learn what we allowed and as human we have big responsibility in this action.
But which kind of Libertarianism? There is a much variation in Libertarianism as there is variation in Authoritarianism. And the real mind screw is people can be authoritarian in some ways, and libertarian in others.
To me the perfect cognitive technology is an anarcho-transhumanist one, as suppose to an anarcho-primitivist one. Although I do strive for something closer to unity between transhumanists and primitivists, extremists ruled out.
I want a robot with the same values as me, other people want robots with their values. But then robots should have free will. So you end up needing to have the same kind of granularity that humans have.
Edit: Well there is also the fact that I’m often confused what people mean when they say “it’s better to have politicians that are robots”? You’d be surprised how many people think of cyborgs as being robots, even if they have a human brain.
You could give Arnold a robotic arm, but he’d still be largely a human politician. Having Battle Angel Alita as your president, is a wholly different ethical quandary than whether Data (or more relevantly Sophia) should be president.
Back to the future?
If referring to me, I don’t understand the question: I’m not really familiar with Back To The Future. (I just haven’t seen much of them.)
Nah my fault for not understanding, maybe when I watch I’ll be in a better position to answer.
Kindof a flag for conservative pushback… we all want a drive of doc’s DeLorean… lol.
Ah gotcha. It could use an upgrade, but it’s a real beauty.
( I’m actually a Libertarian Leftist, which unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of candidates that fit that bill anyway, other than the Greens. )
Well, anarcho-syndicalist, until you start getting into UFO, Artificial Intelligence, and scifi / conspiracy themes, in that case anarcho-transhumanist.
Do you think with less anarchy we may achieve syndicated transhumanism? Nice thought. :-)
Hard to say, I mean as I tell my fiction writing friends, I was once more State Communist and less Ancom, but I do think slightly less anarchy toward transhumanism would be good.
DAO is one option. One thing I’m brainstorming now is a structure similar to Artificially Intelligent Plants, that is, although there is a common ancestor, they’re left to largely evolve in their own direction.
There is a political seed, and I simply watch from the sidelines how politics evolves.