| > I now work with governments around the world at the Tony Blair Institute, which means I spend a lot of time in rooms where people ask the same question: what can we actually trust these systems to do? Oh no - we're going to end up with the Starmerbot 3000. Now I've got the joke out of the way, there's at least four interesting lines of inquiry one could take with this blog post: - teaching the AI how to play Civilization - to what extent does this result in "transferable skills", either AI or human? Is this the right game (qv SimCity etc)? - issues of visibility; "seeing like a state" becomes very literal here. The AI can only make decisions on things it knows about. What are the limits of that when trying to do politics only from statistical information? Should we be referencing Stafford Beer here? - (at the risk of tripping your AI detector here): modern politics is not so much left vs right as "technocratic wonk" vs "blood and soil". The wonks have comprehensively lost in public opinion. Creating a better wonk is not going to help until there is demand for that kind of politics. If there ever is a US-China war, it will not be in search of more victory points to meet a win condition, it will be like the Russia-Ukraine war: one guy (on either side!) decides to make hundreds of millions of people worse off out of sheer greed. |
If anything, I'd almost prefer a leader who hasn't played Civilization in their life. Goes without saying that a mature leader could tell these apart, but in this day and age, I'm not so sure whether everyone could.