Given the scale and complexity of the global economy as well as our knowledge about human nature, it would be extremely naïve to rely simply on spontaneous and voluntary ethical behaviour by individuals and corporations to ensure fairness or improve human dignity. Regulation, combined with serious enforcement, is required to guide our behaviour and ensure the rule of law.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution has brought about a new challenge. This has been articulated in a white paper on values published by the World Economic Forum in November 2016: “Given the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s extraordinarily fast technological and social change, relying only on government legislation and incentives to ensure the right outcomes is ill-advised. These are likely to be out-of-date or redundant by the time they are implemented.”
The examples of social media and electronic cigarettes demonstrate this point. There are interesting similarities between them; both use advanced technology in innovative and fast-changing environments and are therefore almost impossible to define with enough specificity to allow the lengthy regulatory process to run its course. By the time that a regulation is finally approved, the product or service has changed.
Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, big data analytics, distributed ledger technology, and the Internet of Things (IoT) are creating new ways for consumers to interact—and disrupting traditional business models. It’s an era in which machines teach themselves to learn; autonomous vehicles communicate with one other and the transportation infrastructure; and smart devices respond to and anticipate consumer needs.
In the wake of these developments, regulatory leaders are faced with a key challenge: ‘How can we streamline the legislative process to keep up with the pace of technological change in society?’
The legislation is a uniquely tricky topic since every country has their idea and resources about implementing better processes.
In our country is not possible to use digital services for most of the stuff yet. So the question is, how much are countries/states ready to invest in streamlining the process and making it easy to use.
However, I think a standardized platform/process, that could be used around the world with ability for each country to add their specifics, would streamline adopting. But then again - creating such system might be too complex.
That’s really interesting, then I think the problem is compounded because not only do we not have enough time for governments to push laws through before the technology is superseded, but also some countries will have regulated and others not leading to a technological divide in legality.
I wonder where this puts the EU given that all member states have to agree before law is passed?
As Romina said, each country has its own legislative process - so one can only talk in the context of their own political systems.
With that said, I think - in general - the legislative process can be streamlined by educating the masses about the issues being created by certain technologies and the need to keep up with the technological change. If the electorate cares about an issue, the legislators would find the time to enlighten themselves and be more informed about the underlying technologies - and if the electorate demands something be done about the negative effects of a certain technology, the response will be much faster.
Unfortunately, educating the electorate about a certain technology and its consequences is - I feel - an immensely challenging task.
Yeah, most of the people working on leadership positions are too old to understand technology, and too stubborn to let younger ones help and update the process.
Posited law. Four levels, Acts, regulations, standards and codes. Whilst the first two are more variable, standards, especially normative standards like ISO Quality, UN safety , environmental etc. are set in stone (by comparison). These standards define the system. Just add process, any process… Standards implementation? Ah, that can be the road of good intentions… These standards are cited in the UK H&S at work Act (1984). This Act is a model for the current voluntary(?) standards in coding…
The technological changes are important and they give us new tools we can work with.
Those tools need to be made so that they can work in our everyone’s favor. The word equality will eventually gaine more importance if blockchain and AI can be integrated in our financial system as a first step.
Specially helping with corruption and taxation. It’s not about making rich peoples poor or make big companies crumble. It’s about to channel funds to the right places where they were meant to be used for instead of almost everything getting lost on half way to its destination. The final destination is usually the countries and it’s infrastructures or/and its education system.
Liquid democracy with on chain distributive rights and responsibilities… Principles already exist, the challenge is in the implementation. The need is for organic intelligence that is uncorrupted. I am not throwing rocks.
Because this is a system of governance the critical factor is not control it is feedback… Building a better web… Latency waves run up and down the stack…
I’m with Tim Berners Lee. Web 3.0 or a leaky boat… I am not suggesting that we overlook Nature 2.0 etc. SingularityNet has potentially the benchmark model.(Governance 2.0)…
Little Sophia is a great idea, and a good step forward, because tbh, I don’t know that the traditional legislative process can handle AGI. Legislators don’t even understand blockchain and crypto. So it may be a question of establishing “facts on the ground” by ethical projects, which are ideally also consumer oriented projects. In this way, legislators themselves will follow whatever is created-- and hopefully what is created will be good. The AGI “preschool” model I think is positive, intuitively, theoretically, and (I’d imagine) technologically. Plus Little Sophia is very cute, so people might be more inclined to accept her participation in pre-school where she can learn values. It may be a real actual case of democracy-- at least by those who participate. In sum, I guess my answer is that we should not expect the traditional legislative process to handle it; and should instead try to create a situation where they are required to follow, since they cannot lead.
They’re gonna need help eventually anyways because trade deals and politics will slow progress when A.I. is determining the most efficient allocation of resources in real time in the real world. So I guess maybe the answer is by openly offering to help…
Fix it for them with an internet bill of rights. Comply with existing laws to the best of our ability. Ask for forgiveness but not permission.
Here’s a haiku based on a previous post:
Zuck the “tech genius”,
Copied Myspace, sold data
he won’t go to jail.
He actively stole something from people that they didn’t know belonged to them. People shouldn’t have to ask the government to know whether or not stealing is wrong. It seems to me like the Management at SingularityNet understands this and has a better idea for how things should work.
These standards are cited in the UK H&S at work Act (1984). This Act is a model for the current voluntary(?) standards in coding…
