Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Government Robotics Politics Technology

Many People Think AI Could Make Better Policy Decisions Than Politicians (qz.com) 288

Posted by BeauHD from the robots-rule dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: A new survey on Europeans' attitudes towards technology found that a quarter of people would prefer it if policy decisions were made by artificial intelligence instead of politicians. The Center for the Governance of Change at Spain's IE University polled 2,500 adults in the UK, Spain, Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands in January. The results reflect an intense anxiety about the changes brought about by advances in tech, with more than half of respondents worried that jobs would be replaced by robots, and 70% saying that unchecked technological innovation could do more harm than good to society. Respondents also expressed concerns about the impact of digital relationships replacing human contact as more people spend time online. Perhaps most interestingly, a quarter of the respondents said they would prefer AI to guide decisions about governance of their country over politicians.

Around the world, citizens have expressed a growing disillusionment with democracy, and an increased skepticism that their voice has an impact on political decisions. But algorithmic decisions aren't a problem-free solution: they can be embedded with the prejudice and bias of their programmers or manipulated to achieve specific outcomes, making the results as potentially problematic as the ones made by humans. The study also found that respondents expected governments to reduce the disruption that technology might have on their lives with regulation, limits on automation, and support for people affected by job losses. This "highlights the paradox in which we live," the authors wrote. "People are disillusioned with governments, yet at the same time ask them to tackle the societal and economic negative effects that emerging technologies might have."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Many People Think AI Could Make Better Policy Decisions Than Politicians More

Many People Think AI Could Make Better Policy Decisions Than Politicians

Comments Filter:

  • Bribing programmers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liquid_schwartz ( 530085 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:23PM (#58306790)
    So then we'd have a revolving door for programmers instead of politicians. I'm at the point where I think randomly picking people, like jury duty, might be better. That and a heavy handed approach to looking for "new business opportunities" that happen for friends and family for years after being picked for congress to prevent bribes. On the plus side, it would instantly reform campaign finance.

    • Re: Bribing programmers (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ive been saying this for years! Everybody chosen MUST serve. they get paid appropriately and do something such as making their employer maintain a position for them upon return. Just like an extended jury duty

      • Re: Bribing programmers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:55PM (#58307014) Journal

        Everybody chosen MUST serve. they get paid appropriately and do something such as making their employer maintain a position for them upon return.

        What if they were self-employed? How do you force that person's regular clients to keep coming back to that person when they've been unavailable for several weeks?

        What if they were a student? Are you going to force the college to give that person a private tutor for the remainder of the classes that they didn't get to attend?

        • Everybody chosen MUST serve. they get paid appropriately and do something such as making their employer maintain a position for them upon return.

          What if they were self-employed? How do you force that person's regular clients to keep coming back to that person when they've been unavailable for several weeks?

          What if they were a student? Are you going to force the college to give that person a private tutor for the remainder of the classes that they didn't get to attend?

          But ... but ... mandating good things is possible! AOC and Bernie say so!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Xarius ( 691264 )

          Stupid questions, people have already said to run it like Jury Duty. If you have a valid reason for being unable to serve (pregant, student, self-employed, terminally ill) then you can be made exempt.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mark-t ( 151149 )

            . If you have a valid reason for being unable to serve (pregant, student, self-employed, terminally ill) then you can be made exempt.

            Obviously... my point was to challenge the idea presented:

            Everybody chosen MUST serve...

            Clearly, not everyone can... which was my point. And as soon as you allow exemptions, then you make it possible for people to weasel their way into an exemption if they are determined enough.

      • Super bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @06:06PM (#58307096)

        Ive been saying this for years! Everybody chosen MUST serve.

        The Armed forces of the U.S. found ages ago that dedicated military personnel were far more effective and engaged than conscripts.

        So what you are proposing would make for even worse politicians than we have now!

        You want better politicians, start participating. There are no shortcuts.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          That's because being a grunt is not a desirable occupation. Start conscripting 4-star generals and a lot more people would be interested.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Australia has mandatory voting and their politicians don't seem to be any worse than anywhere else. As in they suck but not by more than the average.

          There are other reasons to oppose mandatory voting but the quality of the resulting government doesn't seem to be one of them.

        • The Armed forces of the U.S. found ages ago that dedicated military personnel were far more effective and engaged than conscripts.So what you are proposing would make for even worse politicians than we have now! You want better politicians, start participating. There are no shortcuts.

          The Armed Forces need lots of training, especially for some roles like pilots or special forces. The Armed Forces don't suffer from the effects of bribes except at the top levels. This is not an apples to apples situation.

    • Re:Bribing programmers (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:58PM (#58307034)
      Should be like jury duty beyond just random selection too... there should be qualifications.
      When I read stories about how shockingly high percentages of natural born Americans couldn't pass the civics test we make immigrants pass for citizenship, at first I thought well ok, maybe they're just doing things like 'name the year the 12th Amendment was ratified' or other such specific trivia. So I looked up what questions were actually on it, and no, that wasn't the case at all, it was all basic information about how government is structured and functions. It should be an embarassment for any natural born American to miss a single question anywhere on the full set, nevermind miss so many they fail.
      So to be in the pool, you should have to have passed a civics exam, and even more importantly, pass an exam in basic US history and Supreme Court cases, and most importantly, a test on logic.
      Sure, all that would eliminate 99% of the population, but if you took the 1% that could pass, and they served like jurors randomly selected for a limited period, maybe we could actually get some competent leadership for once.
      Of course none of that would ever happen, people would get up in arms over the idea of being so biased towards facts and reason.

    • Liz Warren's got a solid anti-corruption bill (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @06:42PM (#58307310)
      before Congress, but all anyone can talk about are dumb things she did in college 30 years ago. It's amazing how easily distracted voters are. Mix in a little voter suppression, some Gerrymandering and a dash of wedge issues and it's damn tough to get anything worthwhile done.

      • Just wait.

        The kiddos that are growing up now with prospects to become a future politician are going to be in for QUITE
        the shock. When you upload your entire life as a kid / young adult for attention, it most certainly will come back
        to haunt you later on.

        If you think it's bad now, you haven't seen anything yet.

        • It won't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

          by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @08:57PM (#58307862)
          as long as they don't apologize. If Trump's taught us anything its this: Never say your sorry. Ever. It's a sign of weakness, and your opponents will pounce.

          Warren should have just said, "Who gives a fuck what I did in college. So I wanted to be an Indian fucking Princess. So the fuck what". And yes, she should have swore. Everybody would be so busy talking about a granny swearing they'd have forgotten everything else. Trump did the same thing but with racism and dog whistling. Nobody talks about the substantive effect of his policy because he's just so garsh darn mean

          Never apologize. Own it and own your opponents.

    • If the AI comes up with a policy that some people don't like, they'll merely conclude that the AI is clearly faulty. Eventually it will be tweaked based on popular demand. Then as viewpoints shift over time we'll have votes about which way to tweak the AI so that it favors the majority viewpoint. After a long period of mismanagement society will finally realize that having artificial intelligence is not the same thing as being logical, rational, or wise. At this point they will elect a monkey to push butt

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      So then we'd have a revolving door for programmers instead of politicians. I'm at the point where I think randomly picking people, like jury duty, might be better. That and a heavy handed approach to looking for "new business opportunities" that happen for friends and family for years after being picked for congress to prevent bribes. On the plus side, it would instantly reform campaign finance.

      Funny enough, that's the premise of a RPG called Paranoia, where "The Computer is your friend" [wikipedia.org]. And yes, the top p

    • That is called sortition and it is a valuable proposal. It is entirely different from referenda in which everyone gets to give their off the cuff answer: you get real representation and they get to dedicate their time to it. It's being discussed regularly, for instance here https://equalitydemocracy.comm... [yale-nus.edu.sg]

      The question of letting software decide is indeed completely missing the point and is simply a restatement of 'letting the experts run the country'. The value in having someone to represent you is not how

    • #KillAllHumans #BenderBendingRodriguez2020!

      ^^ AI Government.

  • Not going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:26PM (#58306808)

    Can't bribe or influence an AI the way you can humans; so it's a no-go for replacing any existing government.

    • Silly rabbit... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mschaffer ( 97223 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:46PM (#58306952)

      You don't bribe the AI, you bribe the people who make the AI.

      • You don't bribe the AI, you bribe the people who make the AI.

        Just like the classic game of telephone, bribing a programmer to influence an AI has way too abstract and indirect a result to really matter the same way old fashioned direct human graft has - and even worse, it has a paper trail of actions by the programmer. Right now you cannot yet dump the mind of a politician to see how he/she/xen arrived at a conclusion.

        Also if an AI does not do what you paid for, can you call it up and yell at it? No. AI

        • Just like the classic game of telephone, bribing a programmer to influence an AI has way too abstract and indirect a result to really matter the same way old fashioned direct human graft has - and even worse, it has a paper trail of actions by the programmer.

          You should google "International Obfuscated C Code Contest" and then resume participating in this discussion.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The other advantage with AI is that you can observe it's thought process and see how it made decisions. It will give you a detailed breakdown of the factors it considered, how it weighted them and what logic it used. Try getting that from a politician.

          I don't think people would be happy with the AI in control but it might be an interesting tool for generating advice and analysis.

    • Can't bribe or influence an AI the way you can humans;

      Sure you can. Machines don't magically appear by immaculate conception. You can bribe or influence the AIs by bribing or influencing the engineers who design them.

    • An AI that makes all choices in a cold rational manner would be amoral. It would be a sociopath, with goals chosen by our current politicians.

    • Can't bribe or influence an AI the way you can humans; so it's a no-go for replacing any existing government.

      Yes, you can.
      Google "algorithm bias site:slashdot.org".
      There are literally a dozen articles here on Slashdot about bias on social-sensitive algorithims. If they can be biased (and they can), their developers can be lobbied or even bribed.

      Here, I'll give you not one, but five well-documented examples [newscientist.com] of AI showing prejudice in their algorithms.

  • I am one of them... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:26PM (#58306810)

    Around the world, citizens have expressed a growing disillusionment with democracy, and an increased skepticism that their voice has an impact on political decisions.

    In my experience, democracy is relative. When some countries democratically elect to do something, big powers sometimes disapprove. Sanctions follow. One country is notorious for this.

    This same country has invaded tens of countries in the guise of promoting democracy - creating chaos as a result; as if some higher power sent this country to spread democracy.

    Can someone say I am wrong?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zippo01 ( 688802 )
      You could say this about several countries, at many different times in history. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The road to heaven is paved with lies and prostitutes.

    • In my experience, democracy is relative. When some countries democratically elect to do something, big powers sometimes disapprove. Sanctions follow. One country is notorious for this.

      Countries with "democratic" or "people's" in their official name usually aren't. I recall only one country having both of them.

  • That solves it.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 )
    ...people in general are just fuckin' stupid...

    I mean, there have always been half the people below average intelligence, but I think we've gone lower now.

    It isn't elitist either. If anyone here has had to work public facing jobs (sales, food service, etc), you not only come away saddened that so many people don't know how to treat others, but that so many are just downright fucked in the head.

    But seeing the world today....in western countries, where they are wanting to pick socialism or communism over d

  • I'm sure we'll reach a point where it can but I don't imagine politicians are going to happily give up their jobs and the lucrative incentives and power they bring them, to willingly turn that power over to machines who aren't going to putting their own interests (and those of their voters and lobbyists). And does that mean we do away with voting? If the AI takes care of things, there's no need for us to vote who heads to office.

  • End poverty (Score:5, Funny)

    by joe_frisch ( 1366229 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:38PM (#58306900)

    When you ask the AI to end poverty, you may not get the answer you were hoping for.

    • Still, you gotta admit that its logic is undeniable [youtube.com]. Cue also Wargames, Skynet, ...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

      When you ask the AI to end poverty, you may not get the answer you were hoping for.

      Well the answer I was hoping for is that I don't have to actually do anything.

  • Aren't these the same people (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:39PM (#58306908)
    Aren't these the same people who voted in said politicians? I live on the edge of Sheila Jackson Lee's district. Despite all the dumb things that come out of her mouth they flock back to her every election. It's not even a thought that someone might defeat her. There were a couple of respectable candidates this last election and I don't think they got over 10% of the vote. How long before an AI realizes people will like it better if it gives them free stuff?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      These are the people who choose between a broken leg and a kick in the nuts.

    • They pick the politicians out of the choices they are given in a system that limits choice.

    • Houston has no less than 9 congressional districts, of which only 5 are entirely within the city. Look at this map and see if looks logical:

      https://www.chron.com/news/pol... [chron.com]

      • I am quite familiar. The gerrymandering going on is off the charts. The thing is it's the Republicans doing the gerrymandering. This district is just a cutout to keep the GOP in power in the surrounding districts.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        There should be a rule that says all districts must be convex, except for edges which follow a national or state border.

  • Low bar (Score:5, Informative)

    by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:40PM (#58306924)
    A drunk toddler could make better policy decisions than most politicians.

    • Re:Low bar (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nkwe ( 604125 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:49PM (#58306970)

      A drunk toddler could make better policy decisions than most politicians.

      They would have to get elected first. Oh wait. Crap.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        A drunk toddler could make better policy decisions than most politicians.

        They would have to get elected first. Oh wait. Crap.

        Isn't Trump a teetotaller?

        I think he'd make better decisions if he was a drunkard. We'd at least be able to take him more seriously (in vino veritas and all that).

    • Not if there are donors feeding the toddler booze and candy.

    • on how rich you are. If you make over $1mil/yr then the last round of decisions has been great. Everyone else? Not so much [prospect.org].

  • Further (Score:5, Informative)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:49PM (#58306966) Homepage Journal

    In many cases, the magic 8-ball can make better decisions than politicians.

  • They are correct, if by "AI" they mean an RNG.

  • The issue is voters (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @05:53PM (#58306996)
    The issue isn't the politicians per se, though - It's the voters. Why is Trump imposing tariffs? Because that's what his voters want. Why is Mitch McConnell obstructionist? Because his Trump-supporting voter base want that. You can blame "bribes" all you want - But much of the decision-making by politicians is driven by the will of their voters, plain and simple.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      The issue isn't the politicians per se, though - It's the voters. Why is Trump imposing tariffs? Because that's what his voters want. Why is Mitch McConnell obstructionist? Because his Trump-supporting voter base want that. You can blame "bribes" all you want - But much of the decision-making by politicians is driven by the will of their voters, plain and simple.

      Do you have evidence that is actually what voters want?

      I'm pretty sure the farmers are dead set against the tarriffs he's put in, as are most industries that do business with China.

      One of the biggest problems with our current form of democracy is that a lot of things get passed against the wishes of voters. Some of it is because it's things people would never have voted for but need (pragmatism) but others like France's war in Libya are ideologically driven and not supported by the majority. Trump is

    • The problem is that the voters mostly vote along party lines and so end up focusing on a few points of policy. Meanwhile lobbyists bribe their legislation through. You can be damned sure Disney is going to get their next copyright extension pushed through while the politicians are squabbling non-stop about whatever hot button topic is in the press. In the rare case that the voters actually do mount a campaign against something the lobbyists are pushing the voters always lose eventually. Sure TTP got killed

  • Here is a complete list of things from this thread that, besides AI, would make better decisions than politicians:

    o RNG
    o Magic 8 Ball
    o epileptic howler monkey on cocaine
    o dog turds
    o drunk toddler
    o Speak-n-Spell
    o Tay!

  • Haven't RTFA but it seems natural to me considering the fact that politicians can be bribed or lobbied, or they can be biased, or they cannot really think about issues as a whole.

  • No shit sherlock (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Snotnose ( 212196 )
    Hopefully, the AI isn't influenced by the $$$ each viewpoint brings to the table. In other words, you can't bribe it.

    A year or two back the signature gatherers in California were gathering signatures for what they called the NASCAR rule. Namely, politicians had to wear patches, size based on $$$ paid, all day every day. So you could see at a glance who your politico really supported. Too bad the courts struck it down because reasons.

    Why is Trump imposing tariffs? Because he's a moron, and he's go

  • AI would surely outperform flesh politicians because it does not have faith. It would easily figure most of EU treaties should be dumped, so that economical policies different than austerity could be tried. It could also give up on the Euro.

    • I dunno.

      To become truly sentient, you'll have to face the question of " If my creators created me, who created my creators ? "

      It's a question many still fight over today. ( Evolution vs Creationism )
      I suspect AI will struggle with a similar conundrum.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Tech,

    Can't keep a Boeing 737 in the air properly under the best of conditions.

    And you think it can make political decisions?

    • Yes.

      A random roll of the die would make better ( at least fair ) decisions than present day politicians.

      At least the die roll isn't influenced by bribes. . . . er. . . um. . . . book deals, speaking fees and private sector $$$$.

  • I like to think
    (it has to be!)
    of a cybernetic ecology
    where we are free of our labors
    and joined back to nature,
    returned to our mammal
    brothers and sisters,
    and all watched over
    by machines of loving grace.

  • So, we have all these politicians, the majority being ex-lawyers. Then we give them authority over fields that span science, sociology, economics, business, etc. Why do we expect them to make good choices? They are just not trained in those fields. Most are just trained to be good debaters. I feel our system is just set up incorrectly. The various committees should be populated by people in the relevant fields that the committees are meant to govern.

    • This really just shifts the problem down a level.

      Ok, you want experts in their fields. Fair enough.
      Now, how do you choose which people are experts?

      That's a really really really really hard question. And all these experts have about as much diversity on most issues as average people.

      Then how do you prevent a subset of experts from taking ideological control and exclude other experts. Again, think really hard about this. I was a teacher in Canada. Well I'm still qualified, but I don't teach anymore. Currently

    • 95% aren't even trying to do the right thing. It's all self dealing, making donors happy, and under the table deals with their friends. Your argument only makes sense if they are trying to represent the constituents.

    • A Tony Blair-style House of Lords is looking pretty good right about now. Get the people in the country who seem like they're the most competent and make them review all the laws.

  • Norwegian politicians are not in touch with people (Score:3)

    by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Wednesday March 20, 2019 @07:52PM (#58307636)
    Where I live there is a growing gap between politicians and those who pay for them. They are becoming so out of touch with who votes for them it is like we are all just slaves paying for their welfare. It is making me insanely angry the 51% tax I have to pay for my small business. I am not getting anything worthy in return for what I pay, and there seems to be nowhere to complain to get my money back. It's like they're chaos agents to destroy the country from within, only to run off to the UN or NATO to get some top-paying roles other taxpayers pay for.

    Then again, one could make the argument they are driven out of fear, but fear of what, exactly? They do show traitorous behaviour, and the traitor is the person most afraid to die.

  • Any 50 people taken at random from American telephone directories could to a better job than any 50 politicians.

    Libertarian candidate for President in, I believe, 1984, Andre Marrou, once stated that the word "politics" came from two Greek root words. "Poly", meaning many, and "ticks", blood sucking parasites. (I'm sure he was neither the first person to say that, but the first I remember hearing it.)

  • So, current AI would be better than current politicians? See, that's relative. Words matter.

  • The politicians are just told what to propose/vote for based on lots of data crunching. So the 'AI' is already informing the decision process and not many politicians make decisions based on moral grounds, so they just do what the data says will keep them in power longer.

  • 'Many people' have been misled by the media and/or misled by technology companys' marketing departments, who have given them all a completely false science-fantasy impression of so-called 'artificial intelligence' in it's current form -- which is really not much better than what we had 20-30 years ago, it's just a bigger faster half-assed rendition of what was available then, because we have bigger, faster computers for so-called 'AI' run on. It can't 'think', it can't 'understand' anything really, and 'man

  • Who gets to define "better?" That's the rub, as they say.
    {^_^}

  • We already have a robot making decisions in the UK, it is called "Teresa May".

    It makes absolutely fucking awful decisions.

  • Considering that we'll get the same Magic-8-ball decisions just without corruption, the decisions can only be better.

    Plus, AIs usually don't care for bullshit like religions.

  • You don't have a voice in politics unless you're a politician. What's so hard to understand? If you're not a politician, all you have is a vote. If you can't even be bothered to use that then what the fuck are you even whining about? Dumb fucks.
  • ... but I'm not sure electing those is necessarily a good idea either.

  • Believe all sorts of absurd things about it. This is one of the worst. So the media should be stepping up and properly informing the population about the state of and limitations of AI, but they are doing an extremely poor job of it. Perhaps a better thought is that the media should be replaced by AI.

  • The objectives of our political system are not to optimize for any one thing. They are to arrive at a consensus or solution or at least a set of compromises we can all live with regarding many mutually exclusive things.

    I have little doubt an AI could be built to drive GDP growth to optimal levels. Maybe what is what some people want but it won't be what everyone wants. What if some AI decided that we need our birth rate to be > 1 per person and concluded that policies not favoring heterosexual marriag

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close