[kuschku]

> Maybe Watson would be a republican

That’s very unlikely.

Any logical system based on the concept that human life is worth existing on its own (no matter what the person has contributed to society) automatically ends up with the necessary conclusion that things like subsidized healthcare are mandatory.

Obviously, one could give the program the basic assumption that human life is not worth anything, and it should instead focus purely on profit, and it might end up with a more republican ideology.

But giving an AI with access to nuclear weapons the assumption that human life isn’t the most important factor is... a bad idea.

[mbrock]

What if the logical system determines that the introduction of single-payer healthcare would lead to some kind of political crisis in the next 8 years, for complex predictive reasons that the human mind can barely understand?

It's easy to derive conclusions from moral axioms, but very difficult to do actual politics in a country full of voters, corporations, lobbyists, etc. Artificial intelligence is not a magic solution to that.

[DonHopkins]

It would certainly be a political crisis for the Republican party if their base were to realize how much they've been lying about health care. Bring it on!

[kantianethics]

It's easy to pick sides, whether Republican or Democrat. It's harder to understand that both arguments about society have value.

Fundamental Republicans believe capitalism and the free market is the system that "works best" to ensure a level playing field for everyone. True republicans work to ensure a fair marketplace for everyone, both for poor individuals and rich corporations, providing citizens the ability to better their condition and increase their freedom.

Fundamental Democrats believe that the freedom of citizens is constantly at risk from outside factors, and that the government is the best agent to maintain citizen's free will.

True republicans believe that human nature is fundamentally good, and that the government increases equality by maintaining a free market, while democrats suggest that human nature is often weak, requiring the government's intervention to protect society from itself.

In reality, very few Republican and Democrat politicians actually represent these values. Often, republican views of the free market disproportionately benefit the rich, and democratic attempt to redistribute wealth, instead of fixing inequality at the source.

Although I consider myself independent, I personally would side with a republican interpretation of health care. Studies have shown that government programs in fields such as healthcare are inefficient when compared to their private counterparts, as a competitive market increases supply, and therefore decreases costs, as opposed to monopolies or government programs that provide a single source of service.

[kuschku]

> Although I consider myself independent, I personally would side with a republican interpretation of health care. Studies have shown that government programs in fields such as healthcare are inefficient when compared to their private counterparts, as a competitive market increases supply, and therefore decreases costs, as opposed to monopolies or government programs that provide a single source of service.

There is no need to choose – you can easily provide a minimum standard to everyone, and let the market handle everything above that.

Which is the concept of the social market economy in general: Everyone gets at least a specified minimum level of service, provided by society, paid by everyone (the social part) – and everything above that level is done with a fair and free market (the market part).

[ajmurmann]

Agreeing on moral axioms also might be non-trivial. I for example do not agree with the one you list above, but instead go withz Peter Singer on preventing suffering and not protecting life per se. So abortions for example and even euthanasia of severely sick people including newborns are fair game. Also leads to the question if animal suffering should count and if so, how much? I think trying to take our moral debates down to principals like this might be a super valuable exercise for society though. Regardless if we program Watson to be president or not.

Edit: of course this in practice would devolve to 50+% of the country in essence saying "Whatever I think the bible says should be our acxiom". Completely ruining the discussion.

[kuschku]

(I personally also subscribe to the "preventing suffering" axiom, but wanted to show a better contrast)

But then the AI may decide life is suffering, and end suffering by ending life...

Asimov’s laws of robots end up with the previously mentioned axiom, though.

[ajmurmann]

That's a very interesting point! Watson is I essence a robot, so Asimov's laws should be a good starting point. But are they also a good starting point for the president? Why should laws be different for robots than for people? My head is spinning...

[krapp]

>Asimov's laws should be a good starting point

No they really shouldn't. Asimov's Laws of Robotics were a plot device intended to be subverted by the robots in his stories, they were never meant to be taken seriously.

[awinter-py]

Hard work and change are both forms of suffering (they're unpleasant as you experience them). Why not a more useful goal with the ability to say 'ok, done' -- like 'develop octopus-like mechanical limbs' or 'regrow human arms by splicing in reptilian DNA'.

After all, neither of those experiments has ever gone seriously wrong.

[Eerie]

>Any logical system based on the concept that human life is worth existing on its own (no matter what the person has contributed to society) automatically ends up with the necessary conclusion that things like subsidized healthcare are mandatory.

And that abortion is illegal. :-)

[alttab]

If its mandatory, then every fertile human is walking around with the "right" to produce more burden for the state. That would make reproduction a liability... which turns into birth licenses.

[joesmo]

No because an intelligent life from would not define a bunch of cells that just started multiplying last month and cannot survive on their own as as life.

[trbvm2]

As it happens, the ability to reproduce and the ability to respond to stimuli in any manner are generally accepted qualities that distinguish life from non-life.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

Whether a given bunch of cells may be considered human is still very much an open question but whether a cell or cluster of cells is alive should be pretty easy to agree on.

[jcranmer]

An unborn, non-life form still has utilitarian value: there is an expected value that it would perform throughout its otherwise natural life.

Actually, a strict utilitarian model would probably conclude that it's not worth aborting to save the mother's life if the baby is viable, since the baby would ultimately produce more value for society than the mother would were she to live out her life.

And that's the sort of reasoning that makes everyone hate utilitarian ethics.

[sonwat]

You're assuming an unwanted, unborn baby has value. Not only does it not have value, but it's actually a burden to society. Utilitarianism would consider the damage that unwanted, unborn baby will inflict on society and decide to abort it every single time. Social welfare, orphanage, and especially criminal costs are incredibly likely and incredibly high. The chance that the baby will amount to anything worthwhile enough to offset those costs is incredibly low for an unwanted baby and thus not worth the risk to society. Here in the US we have seen the criminal costs of outlawing abortion with the high crime rates of the 70's, 80's, and early 90's finally coming down in the last two decades due to legal abortion. Other countries like Romania know this equally well. That doesn't even begin to take into account the rest of the social costs of forcing unwanted babies to be born.

[kantianethics]

First, your statement that abortions have decreased crime in the US is based on one of the most flawed and controversial studies in the scientific community [1]. Correlation does not imply causation.

Second, Utilitarianism roughly translates to "the greatest good for the greatest number." If a pregnant, utilitarian woman was granted with the power of foresight, she would abort her child only if he/her was to provide a negative net utility to society. If the child was to provide a net benefit to humankind, she would not abort.

Third, your assumption that unborn (and born) children are a burden to society is correct, but that initial investment is small with regards to the average net "benefit" a grown human creates. It must also be noted that the vast majority of humans benefit humankind through their work (although some have greater impact than others).

No person can see the future, however, so most utilitarians would never abort their children, as the probability their offspring benefit humanity as a whole is greater than the chance that they destroy value.

Frankly, I doubt any woman considers the ethical implications of abortion when they undergo one, and are primarily concerned with family, relationship, and personal problems. If one thinks beyond personal convenience, and look at the bigger picture, abortions are morally unjust from almost every popular ethical system.

Think hard about the choice your parents made by not aborting you. Do you think they made the right decision? Whether you're old, young, rich, poor, hopeful or hopeless, I imagine you'll answer yes.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_e...

[grondilu]

> human life is worth existing on its own

Worth to whom? A human life has value, but not to everybody. Or at least not the same value for everybody. Keeping people alive at any cost, and imposing to people how much they should contribute for achieving that, is not something everyone can agree with.

[conceit]

> Keeping people alive at any cost, and imposing to people how much they should contribute for achieving that, is not something everyone can agree with

Oh, unless the people are politicians, is that what you are saying? Of course, not everyone can agree with that, either. But it is already the norm, so this is just an extension to the rule. So the question is just how much they would agree to contribute.

[saeranv]

I personally agree with you but there are arguments against subsidized health care from the right. It is a cliche, and I think, easily refuted, but there is the libertarian argument that subsidized health care places infringes on personal liberty (forcing one to pay tax, incentivizing the government to regulate your health).

Essentially, what if maximizing individual human liberty was the basis of the program, not a utilitarian notion of maximizing net-human life.

Caveat: even with human liberty as a basis for developing a political system, you could still end up rationalizing mandatory, subsidized health-care i.e. maximizing freedom entails a poor person shouldn't have to lose his liberty to poor health etc. This is my position, but I don't necessarily think it is the inevitable conclusion of attempting to maximize for human liberty.

[wbillingsley]

> That’s very unlikely. > Any logical system based on the concept that human life is worth existing on its own (no matter what the person has contributed to society) automatically ends up with the necessary conclusion that things like subsidized healthcare are mandatory.

If you start solely from that premise: "that human life is worth existing on its own (no matter what the person has contributed to society)" you're very unlikely even to reach taxation (a forced contribution to society) let alone forced subsidies or making anything mandatory. Most of government is based in the notion that someone's only value is in what they contribute to society -- from "tax-dodgers" to "benefit leeches" the vernacular is all about the amount of cash that gets paid into the social coffers.

Much as I appreciate subsidised healthcare, it's not an "automatic conclusion". It is a negotiated compromise, and largely based on nationalism not the value of the individual (eg, the NHS came into existence post-war, as part of the national rebuilding. It's beginnings very much relied on the war effort and large scale conscription having devalued individual freedom amongst the public).

It's become more popular since then because it turns out to work pretty well as a system. Not so much from pure logic, as that healthcare gets more expensive over time (effectively, healthcare can exert a rent on people's lives) and social control of healthcare is a way of putting a cap on its costs at the expense of those in healthcare who could charge much more (eg, watch the NHS junior doctors complaining about the contract changes).

[awinter-py]

if the goal is 'more human lives' you've built a paperclip maximizer.