[yowayb]

I have a theory that corruption+nepotism are unstoppable forces of nature.

Advanced governments only force corruption to distribute and obfuscate.

I think this is why there appears to be some correlation between unpopular behavior and financial success.

Government essentially erects artificial barriers to entry on behalf of the incumbent businesses that fund it.

[jaredklewis]

I don’t know if it is “unstoppable” or a “force,” but nepotism is a natural behavior, selected for in humans by kin selection.

Likewise, I think public choice theory would probably argue that corruption is a predictable outcome in politics that has to be constantly guarded against.

[pjc50]

> corruption+nepotism are unstoppable forces of nature

History suggests it's the other way round. They're awfully prevalent - what is a hereditary monarchy but nepotism - but the value of meritocracy over nepotism enables such better governance that it tends to win handily in proxy or actual conflicts. Similarly, if your society is too corrupt when you go to war you discover that someone has sold the tyres off all your stored vehicles, or suchlike.

You also can't have a complex society without a complex government. This goes all the way back to Qin dynasty vs. "barbarians".

[rudhdb773b]

That's why I see AI (with a clear set of provided objectives and guidelines, i.e., a constitution) as the future of government.

As dystopian as that sounds, it's the only way I see to truly rid ourselves of corruption.

[rush86999]

This is an incomplete thought.

A strong checks and balances without influence of bias, relationships, and politics can be implemented using a 2-way blind system where:

1. decision makers (of sound judgement) are not aware of any identifiable information related to any users on whom the decision will be made, nor of each other.

2. Users are not aware of the decision makers who will decide on them, nor of each other.

Possibly AI can play a role here, but a strong system of checks & balances would be a prerequisite for this.

The justice system would definitely benefit from this.

[dylan604]

I don't know how any AI system would not eventually determine that humans are the problem. Sci-fi uses this as a plot numerous times for a reason. What humans are doing is not logical, and better choices can be made if it weren't so damn profitable for some to keep going as is.

[jdejean]

Why would AI at that scale not have the exact corruptible inclination humans have?

[rudhdb773b]

Because unlike natural life, which has evolved to be highly competitive and self-interested, we would explicitly set the AI's objectives to always benefit society.

[danaris]

And why would the people in power be willing to do that?

[rudhdb773b]

That will definitely be a problem, but I suspect and hope that there will be governing AI models that can be "prompted" with clear and concise instructions that will be demonstrably free of bias towards any group, either by a direct reading or by evaluation with trusted 3rd party models.

If the public does not trust the fairness of the AI prompt, that will hopefully lead to revolution and replacement of the prompt with something more principled, similar to how rigged elections (sometimes) trigger revolutions.