• reddit_sux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • sturlabragason@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.