[mtgx]

Exactly. Some people actually think this would be more "fair", but we can't guarantee an AI would be "fair" for the same reason we can't guarantee that online voting would be safe. Others could easily manipulate it, and not necessarily people from the same country either.

Having AI's as advisers, that would be totally different. In the end we can still hold responsible the people that listened to that advice as it's their responsibility to check if the advice from their AI advisers is real.

[zanny]

You could guarantee online voting with distributed trust and proof of stake. There are several papers on it now that are a good search away.

That doesn't change the AI, though - since it still is physical hardware in some place, even if you could verify the software you can still exploit the hardware.

[pault]

> In the end we can still hold responsible the people that listened to that advice as it's their responsibility to check if the advice from their AI advisers is real.

This has so much potential for a Phillip-K-Dick-ian rabbit hole of paranoia and insanity that it made me chuckle. I think you might be hand-waving away a lot of complexity here. :)

[babbish]

Would you have the same qualms if the AI's source were open and the public voted on which pull requests to accept?

[pjc50]

That sounds even worse. I wouldn't trust binding public voting on pull requests on my text editor; I'd expect it to break down fairly rapidly.

[babbish]

Assign negative weights to people who submit damaging pull requests?

Insert a layer of expert representatives (akin to congresspersons) to generate the PRs?

Making the system resilient doesn't sound like anything more than another engineering problem to me.

[Cyph0n]

The nuances of politics cannot be boiled down to a Github repository. It's not as straightforward as you think it is I'm afraid.

[babbish]

Who said anything about GitHub? The situation would call for a highly specialized, custom-made solution. If you think that's impossible, please share your reasons for thinking so. Comments like yours are pure FUD and aren't in any way helpful.

[stefs]

well, how to identify "damaging" pull requests? i mean, that's what politics is.

[mclovinit]

I take it the definition of public here is inclusive of all citizens in which case, the majority of citizens should understand the fundamentals of AI and the given software implementation. Many citizens are fluent in English and for those who are not, such individuals often confide in trusted sources to translate for them prior to making decisions. I am not sure if this approach of publicly voting on AI would work, but then again many people today do not fully understand each candidates political agendas yet they still end up voting. So I could be wrong.

[privong]

> Would you have the same qualms if the AI's source were open and the public voted on which pull requests to accept?

I interpreted @mtgx's statement as referring to the information that would be input into the IA. Namely that if presidents are getting bad advice from advisors already, replacing the president with an AI might not improve things, if the same bad advice is still being fed in.

[babbish]

If that's what he said, then I agree wholeheartedly. "Garbage in, garbage out" is pretty hard to argue against.

[binarymax]

When it comes to AI, source is only part of the system. The trained model would be a black box. We don't fully understand why some NNs work - so something of this complexity can't simply be cracked open and vetted accurately.

[babbish]

Barring military secrets, perhaps, there's no reason the AI program's current state would necessarily have to be a black box. Nor would it need to be a neural network. I also disagree with the assertion that complex things cannot be vetted.

[varelse]

In that case, one might as well boot up the President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Bot...