I don’t understand this idea completely myself but it’s an evolved form of technocracy with autonomous systems, suggest me some articles to read up on because in the field of politics I am quite illiterate. So it goes like this:

  • Multiple impenetrable, isolated AI expert systems that make rule based decisions (unlike black boxes, eg. LLMs).
  • All contribute to a notion and the decision will be picked much like in a distributed system, for fairness and equality.
  • Then humans are involved, but they too are educated, elected individuals and some clauses that stop them from gaming the system and corrupting it.
  • These human representatives can either pick from list of decisions from AI systems or support the already given notion or drop it altogether. They can suggest notions and let AI render it but humans can’t create notions directly.

Benefits:

  • Generally speaking, due to the way the system will be programmed, it won’t dominate or supress and most of the actions will be justified with a logic that puts human lives first and humans profit second.
  • No wars will break out since, it’s not human greed that’s holding the power
  • Defence against non-{systemized} states would be taken care by military and similar AI expert systems but the AI will never plan to expand or compromise a life of a human for offense

Cons:

  • Security vulnerabilities can target the system and take down the government’s corner piece
  • No direct representation of humans, only representation via votes on notions and suggestions to AI
  • Might end up in AI Apocalypse situation or something I dont know

The thoughts are still new to me, so I typed them out before thinking on paper. Hence, I am taking suggestions for this system!

tl;dr is let AI rule us, because hard coded-rule based decision maker is better than a group of humans whose intents can always be masked and unclear.

  • bluecat_OwO@lemmy.worldOP
    1·
    1 day ago

    So first of all, What:

    • Simple predicate logic
    • who decides the logic? open standards anyone who has a point can draft a point or share their idea
    • I know it will be hard, time consuming and very tedious, but it’s just an Idea, not like those in power would ever relinquish it so easily.

    secondly, I have read about EU laws and it is very challenging but unlike that case, system implemented here would be very fluid, law’s validity period is determined by 2 things:

    1. People’s choices
    2. it’s relevance as decided by the system during polling Which would still not make this system very democratic in a sense but it would really just be distributed AI autocracy, at least the way I see it, its similar to local AI overlords ruling us.

    I think there can be many more standards that can be implemented to keep the system bias proof and strongly ethical.

    One tangential question I had was:

    • If LLM’s logic is structural and derivable, even though complex then why aren’t algorithms and models tend towards rule based predictions like black scholes model and mdp, or am I just a newbie and hasn’t seen enough and I am out of my depth again
    • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
      2·
      13 hours ago

      Your answer to “What”, predicate logic and the tangential question are very strongly related.

      As a practical answer: both types (rule based vs deep learning) exists, in practice the latter performs way better.

      Philosophically, I think it’s a very good question too, to which I can only guess.

      There’s this saying that physics describes everything. From the smallest particle-wave interactions, to the movement of galaxies. It’s just everything inbetween that it struggles with.

      My guess: one can hope the world is best modelled as a clever differential equation. It might as well be. But the differential equation needs boundary conditions, and they’re very high dimensional. Spending a lot of effort on measuring, memorizing these conditions, and then doing simple first order extrapolation, is more effective than trying to find the equation.

      • bluecat_OwO@lemmy.worldOP
        1·
        1 day ago

        I understand and I think your last paragraph is very poetic! And I agree with you partially, but I think in certain cases, it’s better to find the one general case the solution fits to and add the edge cases as it grows.

        But putting the question of model selection aside, do you think this system would be practical, theoretically of course?

        • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
          1·
          1 day ago

          I agree like it as a sci-fi: the AI gods on the hill speak through messengers elect. It’s a greek gods and oracles situation.

          However I must agree with what others said: humans will manipulate whom- and whatever to enforce their desires.

          So the only way to make sure the machine can survive against that, is for them to be able to do the same. Problem being, they might be better at it.