The first thoughts that comes to mind on Taiwan's "digital democracy" and similar "AI" applications elsewhere are of course questions:
1/ who controls, writes and can rewrite the software and how safe is it from outside interference?
2/ who audits the vercity of the results?
3/ down to what level in terms of nickles and dimes do you requi…
The first thoughts that comes to mind on Taiwan's "digital democracy" and similar "AI" applications elsewhere are of course questions:
1/ who controls, writes and can rewrite the software and how safe is it from outside interference?
2/ who audits the vercity of the results?
3/ down to what level in terms of nickles and dimes do you require a citizens vote on decisions to be taken?
4/do you oblige people to vote?
5/what are the exceptions for "emergencies" however they are defined and whoever defines them and who controls their declaration?
6/what happens when the power is "out" as recently in Texas or Lebanon?
5/who do you go to if you have a gripe or a problem if there are no representatives?
In the end I come back to Chrurchill's famous quote from an unknown source ......
“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” Much better to have someone up there who both listens to you and fights for you. The problem with the current system is that once elected our representatives often permit themselves to do neither. It is time we voted in people who understand their obligations to us.
Stuart, I believe there are technical answers to many/all of your questions. Here's the article on Taiwan and their consensus social media algorithms for example that I find so intriguing. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-democracy-social-media If Facebook switched to this algorithms would the hate go away. Perhaps.
If true consensus is built through any method, then there is no room for division. That is what has diminished, in my opinion , in the last decade.
I find when talking to others that the concept of consensus is murky even to its simple definition.
I know a few kindergarten teachers that I would nominate as leaders. The first thing a good teacher does with students fresh to school and a class community is to develop consensus. Which is based on needs and participation of all involved.
Simple yet astounding in its ability to build civic discourse.
Hello Stuart. A similar quote Churchill is attributed to have said about Americans: that we can always be counted on to do the right thing - once we have tried everything else. Now is the time to stop trying "everything else". Unfortunately, this seems to be the way we build consensus in this country: we try a series of easy, novel, stupid, or even counterproductive ideas until we're focused by a crisis. "AI democracy" is a novel idea who's time has not yet come, even without all the concerns you've laid out. Kagan's article on the constitutional crisis spells out some simple (not easy) actions that need to be taken. Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/ . I wonder if an effective tactic may be to write to "lukewarm Trumpers", along with other moderate Republican leaders pointing out the fact that, in Trump's America, they will have no place in government, only "uber-loyalists" will have any real power.
I agree. People are too easily stirred up. This is one reason the founding fathers give more weight to the more stable (at the time) countryside and less to volatile cities, where it was easy to influence many people quickly. They created a gov’t which does not function quickly in normal circumstances. Of course, nowadays you can stir up the countryside as easily as you can the cities.
Good questions. Two things strike me from what I have read about the civic platform. 1) there is a non-comment based ( no trolls) process through which the interaction and feedback of people builds the consensus: 2) there is deliberate & structured interface with the governing body. A cyber step up from our polling and focus groups?? Not sure. Anything can be hacked, I guess. But it is definitely intriguing and probably appeals to a younger crowd. Worth watching.
The first thoughts that comes to mind on Taiwan's "digital democracy" and similar "AI" applications elsewhere are of course questions:
1/ who controls, writes and can rewrite the software and how safe is it from outside interference?
2/ who audits the vercity of the results?
3/ down to what level in terms of nickles and dimes do you require a citizens vote on decisions to be taken?
4/do you oblige people to vote?
5/what are the exceptions for "emergencies" however they are defined and whoever defines them and who controls their declaration?
6/what happens when the power is "out" as recently in Texas or Lebanon?
5/who do you go to if you have a gripe or a problem if there are no representatives?
In the end I come back to Chrurchill's famous quote from an unknown source ......
“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” Much better to have someone up there who both listens to you and fights for you. The problem with the current system is that once elected our representatives often permit themselves to do neither. It is time we voted in people who understand their obligations to us.
Stuart, I believe there are technical answers to many/all of your questions. Here's the article on Taiwan and their consensus social media algorithms for example that I find so intriguing. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-democracy-social-media If Facebook switched to this algorithms would the hate go away. Perhaps.
If true consensus is built through any method, then there is no room for division. That is what has diminished, in my opinion , in the last decade.
I find when talking to others that the concept of consensus is murky even to its simple definition.
I know a few kindergarten teachers that I would nominate as leaders. The first thing a good teacher does with students fresh to school and a class community is to develop consensus. Which is based on needs and participation of all involved.
Simple yet astounding in its ability to build civic discourse.
Taiwan is a society that seeks consensus as was and nolonger is the US.
The only way the U.S. is exceptional now is exceptionally bad.
Hello Stuart. A similar quote Churchill is attributed to have said about Americans: that we can always be counted on to do the right thing - once we have tried everything else. Now is the time to stop trying "everything else". Unfortunately, this seems to be the way we build consensus in this country: we try a series of easy, novel, stupid, or even counterproductive ideas until we're focused by a crisis. "AI democracy" is a novel idea who's time has not yet come, even without all the concerns you've laid out. Kagan's article on the constitutional crisis spells out some simple (not easy) actions that need to be taken. Here is the link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/23/robert-kagan-constitutional-crisis/ . I wonder if an effective tactic may be to write to "lukewarm Trumpers", along with other moderate Republican leaders pointing out the fact that, in Trump's America, they will have no place in government, only "uber-loyalists" will have any real power.
I think well-regulated representative democracy is the way to go. Haven't we already entrusted too much of our political discourse to the internet?
We seem to have lost that, slip, sliding away…
I agree. People are too easily stirred up. This is one reason the founding fathers give more weight to the more stable (at the time) countryside and less to volatile cities, where it was easy to influence many people quickly. They created a gov’t which does not function quickly in normal circumstances. Of course, nowadays you can stir up the countryside as easily as you can the cities.
Good questions. Two things strike me from what I have read about the civic platform. 1) there is a non-comment based ( no trolls) process through which the interaction and feedback of people builds the consensus: 2) there is deliberate & structured interface with the governing body. A cyber step up from our polling and focus groups?? Not sure. Anything can be hacked, I guess. But it is definitely intriguing and probably appeals to a younger crowd. Worth watching.