This is the elite wet dream, yes. Replace all pesky humans with machines, because “democracy doesn’t work”… Except it does work, if you have a free media and a educated population. Maybe fix that if you want a wise population… Instead we go the other way, which is no accident.
Comment on Well would you look at that...
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 hours agoI called this years ago (ruled by humans being flawed, not bottom-up democracy which IMO is a half-measure). AI is the only solution that can be better long-term than democracy. I do not, however, mean we should let Claude run society. We’d need actual AGI that doesn’t just get trained, but learns properly on its own without cheap tricks like writing memory files. It also shouldn’t be influenced by any individuals or organizations.
It’s really a pipe dream at this stage.
1984@lemmy.today 1 hour ago
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 hour ago
This is the elite wet dream, yes. Replace all pesky humans with machines
I’m proposing that the elite be replaced with machines.
Except it does work, if you have a unbiased media
There’s no such thing as truly unbiased media, it’s nearly impossible. Or are you proposing banning all media that isn’t state media? Private media will always have an agenda. Often so will state media though, and that can easily become even more dangerous.
and an educated population.
Doesn’t work. Or are you going to force everyone into poli sci majors? Majority of Europe has free higher education and in most countries the far right has been on the rise again. Even plenty of educated people vote for those parties. Hell, I can tell you that many of the people IN those parties, at least in my country, have degrees one might consider relevant to good governance (history, law, etc) and yet they spew hate.
What if the Ai suggests things that are bad for the rulers of society?
The idea is that the AI has to be the ruler of society and nobody else can have power over it. It also involves developing perfect AI first. I did say it was a pipe dream, didn’t I?
There will always be corrupt humans directing our systems, to stay rich and powerful.
It goes without saying that the existence of private property is part of that plan. The AI would decide who needs how much resources. The book you’ve named yourself after is kind of relevant, but the inner party still consisted of humans and they had ulterior motives. As O’brian himself said, the party’s ultimate goal was nothing other than just the control itself. The AI would have to have an ultimate goal of maximum human happiness, freedom and longevity, as much as possible without giving people freedom to have power over others.
Which means we need less technology, less machines, less surveillance, to have a society where humans can feel free and happy.
Doesn’t work either, unless society is fewer than 100 people or so. Above that we start developing these nasty things called hierarchies. Rulers and such. No human rulers can be allowed to exist if we want a truly just society. Impartial, completely neutral humans don’t exist. Democracy doesn’t work because voters can be swayed and BDFLs are just that, FL. They die and the next one might not be very B, but will be just as D if not moreso.
NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml 57 minutes ago
Hopefully you never achieve an ounce of power, lol.
NonconfrontationaI@lemmy.ml 57 minutes ago
Ew, lol.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 42 minutes ago
Right and wrong are just words. What matters is what you do.
(I just watched that episode of Futurama where Bender was God and it’s a perfectly fitting analogy here, I think).
Firstly, your proposal requires a perfect and noble system. There’s two major problems right there…one in developing a perfect system, and the other in defining what “noble” actually means.
What’s good for one may be bad for another. In often cases it is, especially under a capitalist system where we are made to compete directly with each other.
An example…my box of Kellog’s Raisin Bran says, on the back, “Cereal makes eating well easy”. I misread it at first and thought it said “cereal makers eating well”, and pondered about that for a moment.
As a consumer, we don’t want cereal makers eating well. I mean, we say we do, but our actions prove otherwise. Consumers are disincentivised from the cereal makers (as in the grain farmers) eating well, because that means a more expensive product, which is money out of their pockets, which now means they are eating less well than they would have. We are subconsciously at war with our peers.