Do we need to worry about artificial stupidity? • Hacker News Board

Re: Do we need to worry about artificial stupidity?

#91

Post by ben_w » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #83

ben_w wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to you tell one from the other, especially when you’re inside one?

Lets see some examples Everybody is allowed to vote, as long as they are white: Felt like a real democracy but is a fake Everybody is allowed to vote, except women. Felt like "the best democracy" once upon a time, but is also fake. Not even a half democracy. Many of the things that today are normal could (and will) be deeply embarrasing in the future and so similar to a real democracy as a plastic imitation of a turd…

I assume those are supposed to be necessary rather than sufficient conditions, because my immediate thoughts are:

1: Why adults? Why citizen? How do you define each?

2: Why make them equal when you just excluded minors and non-citizens entirely — e.g. you could make it so 13-18 year olds get counted as (years less than 18)/5 of a vote, why is that bad?

3: why is that important, why not require passing a basic civics qualification?

Meta: when non-white people were disenfranchised, were they also treated as “not people”? If so, what other categories currently considered “not people” should in future be treated as people? (If any)

Re: Do we need to worry about artificial stupidity?

#92

Post by matz1 » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #90

matz1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is not the limitation of democracy. Whatever people end up vote for is not the concern of democracy. By definition democracy is merely a system where people exercise power by voting, it doesn't concern about the outcome. As long as people have the right to vote, it is a democracy. Its not the concern of democracy if the people vote for the "wrong" politician.

People don’t exercise power in this scenario.

if they vote then they did exercise power (even if they vote for lying politician).

If they are not allowed to vote then they didn't exercise power.

Re: Do we need to worry about artificial stupidity?

#93

Post by ben_w » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #92

ben_w wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t exercise power in this scenario.

if they vote then they did exercise power (even if they vote for lying politician). If they are not allowed to vote then they didn't exercise power.

There is no power to be exercised in this scenario. They can vote, but it is literally mere coincidence if anything related to their intentions occurs. It’s like typing onto a keyboard that isn’t plugged in. Or prayers to a non-existent deity. Voting ceases having anything to do with reality the moment reality stops having anything to do with the decision behind the vote. It is action without a discernible causal connection to the result.

(Is it just me, or does our disagreement sound like two people arguing if a tree falling alone in a forest makes a noise, because one thinks “noise” is the vibration and the other thinks it is the qualia?)

Re: Do we need to worry about artificial stupidity?

#94

Post by matz1 » Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #93

matz1 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if they vote then they did exercise power (even if they vote for lying politician). If they are not allowed to vote then they didn't exercise power.

There is no power to be exercised in this scenario. They can vote, but it is literally mere coincidence if anything related to their intentions occurs. It’s like typing onto a keyboard that isn’t plugged in. Or prayers to a non-existent deity. Voting ceases having anything to do with reality the moment reality stops having anything to do with the decision behind the vote. It is action without a discernible causal con…

The power to be exercise is the casting of the vote.

The decision or the intention behind the vote is nothing to do with democracy itself.

Someone who cast a random vote in the ballot is as valid as someone who put a lot of thought in the ballot.

Doesn't matter if let say majority of the people vote by throwing the dice, it still democracy.

Re: Do we need to worry about artificial stupidity?

#95

Post by pvaldes » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 10:23 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #91

pvaldes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets see some examples Everybody is allowed to vote, as long as they are white: Felt like a real democracy but is a fake Everybody is allowed to vote, except women. Felt like "the best democracy" once upon a time, but is also fake. Not even a half democracy. Many of the things that today are normal could (and will) be deeply embarrasing in the future and so similar to a real democracy as a plastic imitation of a turd…

I assume those are supposed to be necessary rather than sufficient conditions, because my immediate thoughts are: 1: Why adults? Why citizen? How do you define each? 2: Why make them equal when you just excluded minors and non-citizens entirely — e.g. you could make it so 13-18 year olds get counted as (years less than 18)/5 of a vote, why is that bad? 3: why is that important, why not require passing a basic civics…

> 2: Why make them equal when you just excluded minors and non-citizens entirely

There is a worlwide consensus about that people from other nations are not allowed to participate in elections of the government of a country. We would need to change the legal definition of a sovereign country for allowing it, and the benefits are unclear (to start, the president of all small and middle sized countries would be chinese).

There is a worldwide consensus also about that laws have to treat minors in a different way than adults. More indulgent. They have different rights and duties. Minors are expected to commit mistakes.

Allowing a toddler to vote for a party would imply explaining first what means terms like "left", "my left, not your left", "rigth", "communism", "liberalism", "populism" or "fascism", when they should be crashing windows with baseball balls instead. This would hit close to adoctrinating boys and girls and forcing them to choose one side (and deal with the unavoidable consequences in a yet enough confuse and complex phase of their lives).

> 3: why not require passing a basic civics qualification?

Lets people decide with their vote if is a politician or a clown. This is the purpose of voting. If the semi-automatic lonely boy is democratically elected by the majority, people has spoken, and I'm fine with that.