There is an increasing amount of evidence that deliberative systems work - they can reduce polarisation, help find commonalities and solutions to difficult problems. But they threaten players in the current political system. This conversation with Hélène will show you why the change is possible! As always, let me know your thoughts in the comments.
I was afraid from the title that this was going to be a typical cultish screed about crypto, but it actually ended up being a super interesting conversation
The problem will always be that technology is not blind; it is owned and empowered by people, and corporate entities like Google, Microsoft, and Apple. These companies have demonstrated time and again that their bottom line is far more important than fairness, or the privacy of their customers. You want Google "randomly" selecting people to tackle social issues? Sure, that'll be *very* "random" I'm sure... As long as companies that wield technology are paid (via ads, for example) by Big Pharma, for example, we can NOT trust them to be impartial and to have anyone's best interest at heart other than those who pay them.
Certainly, Google is not appropriate for selecting participants, Landemore mentioned starting with the UN. Getting the kind of diversity she mentioned will be a challenge. We won't know until we try.
Fascinating debate on the future of democracy! The focus on technology's role and its potential to usher in a new golden age is commendable, like laying the foundations for a skyscraper of renewed democratic ideals. However, the interview seems to get tangled in the scaffolding of academic thought when it needs to drive deep into the bedrock of human psychology and behaviour. The question about having a "mini public" evaluate the role of AI in aligning with human values? That's like asking a prospective homeowner to understand the intricate architecture of a smart home without even knowing what Wi-Fi is. AI's role is to decipher complex algorithms and data patterns beyond human comprehension. To weigh these decisions on the uninformed scale of public opinion undermines its potential to enhance decision-making processes. AI, needs to be part of the conversation about AI. The real issue is us humans at the helm of these systems. It's time to face the cracked mirrors of our history, acknowledging our inbuilt flaws like corruption, power misuse, biases and discrimination. Ignoring these is like building a luxury apartment complex on a sinkhole; it's only a matter of time before the façade collapses. And let's talk about citing Reagan, Thatcher, and Blair as great leaders; many jaws hit the floor faster than a plummeting property market! The need for a radical rethink in how we approach democracy is evident, especially if we want to truly leverage new technologies like AI. Finally, scrolling through the comments here is like walking through a model home of human responses; each comment a little compartment showing us how we react, behave, and think in different scenarios. It's a microcosm of the "mini public" idea.
I agree with Azhar that juries are evidence that lay people can come to good conclusions. In complex cases they must be given time and control over their own process. Frankly, as AI translation gets better and text/voice/video gets baked in, we will all learn a lot from this process.
um this is a standard traditional anarchist idea, we usually call it "sortition",,, hey maybe you could check out some other ideas of ours sometimes instead of just always constantly repeatedly buying the idea that we simply don't believe in governance,,,,, ok thanks
This sounds great if you have a educated populous, but the opposite is true if you have a uneducated people who just go with their feelings or religions. Like most technology, there will always be someone behind the curtain pulling strings
This is so obviously easy to game that a reasonable person should suspect this is a troll. A "random" selection would be as trustworthy as a leader that says "the budget will balance itself".
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
There is an increasing amount of evidence that deliberative systems work - they can reduce polarisation, help find commonalities and solutions to difficult problems. But they threaten players in the current political system. This conversation with Hélène will show you why the change is possible! As always, let me know your thoughts in the comments.
The problem is social media algorithms creating divisions where there were none before and pushing people to radical views.
Misinformation + uneducated voters also do not help.
agree. echo chambers enabled by social media algorithms are extremely toxic.
Democracy is not in trouble, capitalism is
I was afraid from the title that this was going to be a typical cultish screed about crypto, but it actually ended up being a super interesting conversation
Great for learn English 🎉
,,Word on the street'' is always honest, brutally honest...
The problem will always be that technology is not blind; it is owned and empowered by people, and corporate entities like Google, Microsoft, and Apple. These companies have demonstrated time and again that their bottom line is far more important than fairness, or the privacy of their customers. You want Google "randomly" selecting people to tackle social issues? Sure, that'll be *very* "random" I'm sure... As long as companies that wield technology are paid (via ads, for example) by Big Pharma, for example, we can NOT trust them to be impartial and to have anyone's best interest at heart other than those who pay them.
Certainly, Google is not appropriate for selecting participants, Landemore mentioned starting with the UN. Getting the kind of diversity she mentioned will be a challenge. We won't know until we try.
Ah this host is too annoying.
In Indonesia we call it musyawarah
The interviewer wants to be the center of attention. Prove he’s done the reading. Just let the guests talk man.
Fascinating debate on the future of democracy! The focus on technology's role and its potential to usher in a new golden age is commendable, like laying the foundations for a skyscraper of renewed democratic ideals. However, the interview seems to get tangled in the scaffolding of academic thought when it needs to drive deep into the bedrock of human psychology and behaviour.
The question about having a "mini public" evaluate the role of AI in aligning with human values? That's like asking a prospective homeowner to understand the intricate architecture of a smart home without even knowing what Wi-Fi is.
AI's role is to decipher complex algorithms and data patterns beyond human comprehension. To weigh these decisions on the uninformed scale of public opinion undermines its potential to enhance decision-making processes. AI, needs to be part of the conversation about AI.
The real issue is us humans at the helm of these systems. It's time to face the cracked mirrors of our history, acknowledging our inbuilt flaws like corruption, power misuse, biases and discrimination. Ignoring these is like building a luxury apartment complex on a sinkhole; it's only a matter of time before the façade collapses.
And let's talk about citing Reagan, Thatcher, and Blair as great leaders; many jaws hit the floor faster than a plummeting property market! The need for a radical rethink in how we approach democracy is evident, especially if we want to truly leverage new technologies like AI.
Finally, scrolling through the comments here is like walking through a model home of human responses; each comment a little compartment showing us how we react, behave, and think in different scenarios. It's a microcosm of the "mini public" idea.
I agree with Azhar that juries are evidence that lay people can come to good conclusions. In complex cases they must be given time and control over their own process. Frankly, as AI translation gets better and text/voice/video gets baked in, we will all learn a lot from this process.
um this is a standard traditional anarchist idea, we usually call it "sortition",,, hey maybe you could check out some other ideas of ours sometimes instead of just always constantly repeatedly buying the idea that we simply don't believe in governance,,,,, ok thanks
This sounds great if you have a educated populous, but the opposite is true if you have a uneducated people who just go with their feelings or religions. Like most technology, there will always be someone behind the curtain pulling strings
This is so obviously easy to game that a reasonable person should suspect this is a troll. A "random" selection would be as trustworthy as a leader that says "the budget will balance itself".
Give your reasons and cite sources as to why you think this would be easy to game.
This guy act like he knows everything, but he have a zero idea what’s going on.
First