Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

aicracy.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#91

Post by someotherperson »

ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #88
someotherperson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think its mangled?

"mangled transliteration" is the unquoted expression used by etymonline [1]. I suppose it's mangled since Khwa becomes go without too much thinking on the Latin side. In the case of of alkali , from the Arabic al-qaliy "burnt ashes" [2], there is a bit more care. Perhaps a better transliteration would have been alquarismus , 800+ years too late [3]. [1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/algorithm#etymonline_v_8145 [2]…

I'm not sure how I feel about the letter /q/ substituting the letter خ but it's interesting to note that the letter matches the softened /g/ in dutch. I wonder if that shift played a role in the reason why it is spelt the way it is.

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#93

Post by m-watson »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #44
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #12

Algocracy [1] sounds somewhat better, but as any barbarism, Medieval Latin algorismus , a mangled transliteration of the Arabic al-Khwarizmi + kratos , Ancient Greek word for power, is just as wrong. The issue however is that society does not have a technology problem, it has a metaphysics problem: under, over, and for what should there be a we . Hence why all the futures we imagine through technology can barely go b…

> The issue however is that society does not have a technology problem, it has a metaphysics problem: Wrote the same thing yesterday in this Techrights piece [1] I think there's a genuine danger in writing "dystopian warnings" like this. Plenty of people are now actually at the stage where they cannot see the joke. Christopher Hitchens wrote on North Korea's Kim Jong-Un (and later Cory Doctorow said something similar…

That is exactly the reason I have tried to explore the Solarpunk sub-genre[0]. It isn't that the work is necessary optimistic but it seems like the genre focuses on problems that currently exist and where to go from here.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#94

Post by robertlagrant »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #70
robertlagrant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The state controls the money to a great extent. It can take it, and it can make more of it, and it can lock you in a box if you don't give it, and it can force (some of) you to go and die fighting another country. Corporations are not perfect, but generally speaking they are just scaled up versions of individual workers. A one-person company or a 1000-person company might each need capital investment to g…

Except large corporations hold more money than workers, even if divided per worker. So they can lobby more effectively and gain both the power over private algorithms and regulations.

Agreed, but I mean people (or groups of people) are doing it.

To put it another way, there are two types of actor:

- the state, who has the ability to pass laws, collect money on pain of being locked up, penalise/encourage businesses through tariffs and regulations, and change the value of money through inflation

- people and corporations, who have to provide value to receive money

You're right, any of those can do good or bad with the money they receive. But to say that corporations hold the most power because they can lobby the people who actually have power doesn't make sense to me.

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#95

Post by noduerme »

thfuran wrote: post #82
noduerme wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that exaggerates the purpose of the world's economy - which for almost everyone, everywhere, all of the time is about sustaining themselves and their kids, not buying products for social value (what the neighbors just got is a very old idea, but the Instagram version of showing it off is very new, and most people just want to live well without trying to impress people with bling). There's also something conta…

A lot of people place a lot more value on status than you seem to realize.

I feel like all my friends say this but none of them really care about status either, they just think other people do. Maybe apart from a handful of psychopaths with outsized social media followings, no one really does. Then again, I live in Portland where a lot of people fight for intellectual status but no one would be caught dead showing any sign of material wealth or privilege... but I also feel like people in the red parts of the metro/state are mostly not concerned with status or much beyond living middle class lives either.

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#96

Post by prox »

hemmert wrote: post #40
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #12

Algocracy [1] sounds somewhat better, but as any barbarism, Medieval Latin algorismus , a mangled transliteration of the Arabic al-Khwarizmi + kratos , Ancient Greek word for power, is just as wrong. The issue however is that society does not have a technology problem, it has a metaphysics problem: under, over, and for what should there be a we . Hence why all the futures we imagine through technology can barely go b…

I think we're losing that 'we' in many instances, even if it feels like being 'more connected', it's less 'together' often.

Going back to etymology: the word relationship comes from “act of telling or relating in words.”

You can’t have a “we” if you don’t directly connect in a meaningful way your experiences.

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#97

Post by freemanon »

aardvark179 wrote: post #78
freemanon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neutrality is a prerequisite for discussions. This project is not a discussion.

The project itself is not a discussion, but responses and reactions to it form a discussion. As to neutrality being a prerequisite, are you trying to separate the idea of discussion from debate? I feel you may either have different basic definitional ideas than the people you are arguing with. On this project specifically, and the notion of AI in government in general, and am reminded of a quote about late nineteenth…

I guess my issue is that IMO these explorations of provocative issues are best done with the least amount of prejudice. When we're clouded by repulsion or other emotional states, we might fail to properly analyze the matter at hand.

By declaring the described future as undesirable, the authors' question and wish to stimulate a discussion is clouded with prejudice, IMHO.

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#98

Post by freemanon »

sobkas wrote: post #89
freemanon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making a factual claim, what sources can I cite, Plato? It's up to us humans to decide whether discussions are better off taking place within a neutral/biased forum.

> I'm not making a factual claim, what sources can I cite, Plato? You said that "Neutrality is a prerequisite for discussions". It's factual claim. Do you have a some citation/proof/data that supports your claim? I bet there are plenty papers (or even better, meta-analysis) about discussions. > It's up to us humans to decide whether discussions are better off taking place within a neutral/biased forum. First in previ…

I'm not interested to researching into the research of discussions. You're free to disagree if you think discussions aren't best done within a neutral forum, but I expect most people to have the common sense of seeing the benefit of it.

Which question is a useful opener for a discussion:

- "How can we help Africa end starvation?" vs - "Should we send more aid to these ungrateful African countries who have been cozying up to China instead? (Obviously not)".

It should be obvious which is a discussion and which is merely a statement veiled as a rhetorical question. But hey maybe most people can't tell and that's why Fox news still has so many viewers.

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#99

Post by 9dev »

loa_in_ wrote: post #86
maest wrote: post #8

> This will help you to conveniently find the products that match your taste, your wallet, and your societal value. To increase your societal value, just be yourself and actively contribute as much as you can. Your efforts will not remain unrewarded. This is supposed to be dystopian etc, but don't we already have this mechanism in place in our current world? It's called money.

> just be yourself and actively contribute as much as you can. Your efforts will not remain unrewarded. That doesn't really give money. It might get you a thumbs up.

Doesn’t that change with the influencer economy? Most kids I know aspire to become YouTube stars, where, literally, a thumbs up will give you money.

Re: Aicracy – Governed by Algorithms

#100

Post by plokiju »

michaelscott wrote: post #75
ETH_start wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The individualized approach is more congruent with reality, as people experience the world as individuals. Collectivism is based on a conceptual error, in personifying society, instead of recognizing it as an abstract notion. The advancement of human civilization was driven by the recognition of individual rights and the emphasis on the individual. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol...

I would say it's more congruent with evolution, which is to say it aligns with the idea that mutations or other advantages can put an organism far ahead of its competitors and improves the species through genetic preservation (or historical preservation, in the case of societies). I don't buy that it's out-and-out better than a collectivist system at a society level (even though I consider myself very much an individ…

It’s funny, I thought this comment was going to go the opposite way. The first examples I thought of in evolution were things like ant colonies, where individuals sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective gene pool, and are extremely successful as a species because of it.

But yeah, there are more individualistic species that are also successful. I guess it depends on the ecological niche, and both strategies can find success depending on the environment they are in?

Post reply on HN