|
The country's average knowledge about the issues is already laughable and that's with lobbying groups hardly bothering to target the masses because it's the politicians running things that have the power to give them what they want, yet half the country is literally this guy. If you want to see a quantum leap in the science of corporate propaganda then go ahead and give direct democracy a try. The business world will pour entire economies worth of money into brainwashing the population. No one's going to listen to a handful of unkempt college professors who can barely give a speech (BECAUSE THEY'RE RESEARCH SCIENTISTS NOT TEACHERS,) because they'll be drowned out by the army of "experts" that wall street has cloned from Captain America's DNA, and raised to be the most affable, genial, tall, attractive, authoritative PhD's to have their education paid for by corporate sponsor since grade school.
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
I think the best and only argument needed against a system of "Online Direct Democracy" wherein people come together to express either their support or opposition to someone else's idea is simply this.
-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jun 29, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:-- Actually the answer, then, is to invent superintelligent AGI and make that our immortal philosopher king. Purple Prince posted:The immortal philosopher god-king sounds good: unfortunately we can't invent them because the inventors would bring their own biases to the process. First, we already have thinking machines that can outperform humans. Even a basic four function calculator can perform that specific function more efficiently and with less error than our "best and brightest" humans and certainly better than the average person. But let's leave that point out and assume for the sake of argument that any AGI would come with human biases. So what? It would still make decisions that are vastly superior to the current reasoning process we employ in government and Kahneman explains why. It's true that humans have a lot of things working against us when it comes to making rational unbiased decisions, but this is compounded a billion-fold into a global dumpster-fire of bad choices when we resort to snap judgement heuristics, which is pretty much always. The truth is given enough time, training, and a structured and rigorous methodology humans actually can work our way to pretty solid conclusions based on existing knowledge and evidence gained from design of experiments, but that rarely happens outside of something like Physics or other science research, and certainly not in modern politics. An AGI, inherent human biases included, would be able to make calculations using a database of all human knowledge to reach decisions in the most optimally human way possible, which is also far superior to what's in current use in government. Like, I don't think people realize just how low the bar is right now in terms of Decision Science and Scientific Reasoning within our government, you could practically replace congress with plugged-in toasters and the outcomes would be better than they are now. Or in other words, "It's displacement!" 
-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Sep 1, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This doesn't make sense because almost all public policy decisions involve some sort of value judgement associated with questions like "what is the end goal, what are we willing to accept towards reaching it, etc." It's not actually vague or complete nonsense. Decision Theory is literally a thing that exists and is used quite often to reach the optimum alternative in complex decision making. Here's a very easy intro book. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2020 20:24
|
|