As I wrote the other day, p(doom) is somewhat-tongue-in-cheek shorthand for the probability that we are all going to die from some AI-induced extinction event. I rather doubt that will happen, but I am not sure that it won’t. What I am sure of, though, is that our chances to avoid serious consequences aren’t great if we control neither AI nor the companies that make AI
I'm not entirely straight on why an alternative voting system would help get AI legislation passed. Is the argument that our current system benefits the extremes and thus congress just generally gets less done overall? I'm sympathetic to this.
It doesn't seem like congress is currently in love with AI and tech companies the way they've been in love with traditional media and innovators in the past. If anything, I'd guess that the more "extreme" ends of both parties are where you'll find the most skepticism of tech companies and AI. That's where we found the most opposition to section 230 of the CDA, right?
I'm kind of guessing that those of us who read Substacks about AI probably interact with more pro-AI and pro-tech people on a regular basis than do most Americans.
Not that a lack of popularity will necessarily stop an industry from successfully pulling off regulatory capture...
We have a two party system because nobody can rule from the center. There is always a benefit to taking a position slightly more to the Left or Right of an incumbent and the process continues.
Term limits are well studied. They lead to GREATER regulatory capture (because lobbyists go directly to the executive branch/civil servants) and LESS consensus (because if you can only run 1, 2, 3, times, why bother?).
We need to get all the soft money out of politics. Additionally, political flaws are a symptom of deeper economic problems. People who are secure about their economic well being aren't generally crackpots nor can they be exploited by crackpots.
Would you happen to have any thoughts on the framework suggested by Prof Lessig in his book Republic Lost? The ideas expressed in the book, including Ranked choice voting, mainly democracy vouchers, and crowd-funded elections, seemed like an exciting solution to a messy funding problem. Would such a system help curb regulatory capture strategies?
It only briefly acknowledges that there is controversy over whether AGI/singularity will ever actually happen, and especially in its timid section on regulation, doesn’t address potential biases that could come about from a company lobbying the government hard to regulate AI based on AGI fears rather than the problems pose today. Also, unsurprisingly doesn’t seem to demonstrate how openAI’s ever-growing LLMs will one day become AGI....
Anyway, not the worst thing I’ve ever read, but definitely a puff piece.
District-based systems are vulnerable (FPTP as in the UK even more so), far more than proportional representation (which is not invulnerable itself and also has disadvantages that must be taken into account). But if you have district-based, then, yes, ranked voting is a way to remedy a bit of that vulnerability. Far larger districts with say, 4-5 representatives (the 4-5 with the most votes) would also be an option.
The catch-22 is: you need to overcome the money-influence to get to a system where you can limit the vulnerability to money influence. How are you going to get this in the US as long as you have Talk Radio and Fox poisoning democracy? Not impossible, but very, very hard.
There is an extensive thorough article in Wikipedia on voting systems, their advantages and drawbacks; as someone said long ago, democracy is the second-best system of governance; limiting terms to a single one is a simple solution that could help remove individuals who use a long tenure to stack votes in their favor
These political ideas are interesting and worthy of discussion. But I doubt they are the solution to a possible doom from AI, or any other threat. As example, no matter what form of democracy we might have, nuclear weapons head in the sand denial would still be pervasive, and that's a far more immediate and tangible threat than what may someday possibly happen with AI.
My best guess is that we are substantially over estimating our ability to steer the future course of this civilization. We are probably riders on the bus of history, who are confused, and thinking that we are the driver.
If there is a solution to the existential threats that we keep inventing, it will most likely come in the form of pain, that which we actually learn from. As example, public consciousness on climate change vastly exceeds our focus on either AI or nuclear weapons, because we can see the results of climate change happening every other night on the news.
Which reminds me, I'll leave this here for now, as there is a major hurricane headed straight for our house, and due to arrive in the coming hours.
Strong agree! It is obvious these changes are what is best for people and the planet. I’ll add we need to bring open data science into our democratic processes to provide transparency into how things work.
People need to understand how things like gerrymandering and how states with lots of land but less people sway outcomes against the people’s wishes. The mathematics of voting gives Republicans an inherent unfair advantage. The benefits of ranked choice voting, taking money out of politics, eliminating gerrymandering, giving states with more people more representation, are all easy to prove as more democratic processes. Most people just don’t understand the statistics enough to see how rigged our election systems are against what people actually want.
Gary, you might be interested to hear that the US' two-party system has been called a "Doom Loop" by political scientists! See https://www.uniteamerica.org/page/two-party-doom-loop for background -- Lee Drutman has a full-length book treatment of the issue https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Two-Party-Doom-Loop-Multiparty/dp/0190913851 .
I would prefer a combination of term limits AND ranked choice voting.
“The goal of the companies is return to shareholders, not to return to humanity.”
Aye there’s the rub
I'm not entirely straight on why an alternative voting system would help get AI legislation passed. Is the argument that our current system benefits the extremes and thus congress just generally gets less done overall? I'm sympathetic to this.
It doesn't seem like congress is currently in love with AI and tech companies the way they've been in love with traditional media and innovators in the past. If anything, I'd guess that the more "extreme" ends of both parties are where you'll find the most skepticism of tech companies and AI. That's where we found the most opposition to section 230 of the CDA, right?
I'm kind of guessing that those of us who read Substacks about AI probably interact with more pro-AI and pro-tech people on a regular basis than do most Americans.
Not that a lack of popularity will necessarily stop an industry from successfully pulling off regulatory capture...
RCV is a well studied problem in economics. Look at Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Condorcet's Paradox. RCV doesn't actually work right.
https://lawliberty.org/the-flaws-of-ranked-choice/
We have a two party system because nobody can rule from the center. There is always a benefit to taking a position slightly more to the Left or Right of an incumbent and the process continues.
Term limits are well studied. They lead to GREATER regulatory capture (because lobbyists go directly to the executive branch/civil servants) and LESS consensus (because if you can only run 1, 2, 3, times, why bother?).
We need to get all the soft money out of politics. Additionally, political flaws are a symptom of deeper economic problems. People who are secure about their economic well being aren't generally crackpots nor can they be exploited by crackpots.
Would you happen to have any thoughts on the framework suggested by Prof Lessig in his book Republic Lost? The ideas expressed in the book, including Ranked choice voting, mainly democracy vouchers, and crowd-funded elections, seemed like an exciting solution to a messy funding problem. Would such a system help curb regulatory capture strategies?
Are you going to write anything in response to WIRED’s puff piece for OpenAI?
https://www.wired.com/story/what-openai-really-wants/
It only briefly acknowledges that there is controversy over whether AGI/singularity will ever actually happen, and especially in its timid section on regulation, doesn’t address potential biases that could come about from a company lobbying the government hard to regulate AI based on AGI fears rather than the problems pose today. Also, unsurprisingly doesn’t seem to demonstrate how openAI’s ever-growing LLMs will one day become AGI....
Anyway, not the worst thing I’ve ever read, but definitely a puff piece.
District-based systems are vulnerable (FPTP as in the UK even more so), far more than proportional representation (which is not invulnerable itself and also has disadvantages that must be taken into account). But if you have district-based, then, yes, ranked voting is a way to remedy a bit of that vulnerability. Far larger districts with say, 4-5 representatives (the 4-5 with the most votes) would also be an option.
The catch-22 is: you need to overcome the money-influence to get to a system where you can limit the vulnerability to money influence. How are you going to get this in the US as long as you have Talk Radio and Fox poisoning democracy? Not impossible, but very, very hard.
There is an extensive thorough article in Wikipedia on voting systems, their advantages and drawbacks; as someone said long ago, democracy is the second-best system of governance; limiting terms to a single one is a simple solution that could help remove individuals who use a long tenure to stack votes in their favor
I have some Substack posts on voting systems that may be of interest. Here's a starting point:
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottsthotts/p/an-introduction-to-the-voting-system
These political ideas are interesting and worthy of discussion. But I doubt they are the solution to a possible doom from AI, or any other threat. As example, no matter what form of democracy we might have, nuclear weapons head in the sand denial would still be pervasive, and that's a far more immediate and tangible threat than what may someday possibly happen with AI.
My best guess is that we are substantially over estimating our ability to steer the future course of this civilization. We are probably riders on the bus of history, who are confused, and thinking that we are the driver.
If there is a solution to the existential threats that we keep inventing, it will most likely come in the form of pain, that which we actually learn from. As example, public consciousness on climate change vastly exceeds our focus on either AI or nuclear weapons, because we can see the results of climate change happening every other night on the news.
Which reminds me, I'll leave this here for now, as there is a major hurricane headed straight for our house, and due to arrive in the coming hours.
This scenario is distinctly possible :
Yes
Strong agree! It is obvious these changes are what is best for people and the planet. I’ll add we need to bring open data science into our democratic processes to provide transparency into how things work.
People need to understand how things like gerrymandering and how states with lots of land but less people sway outcomes against the people’s wishes. The mathematics of voting gives Republicans an inherent unfair advantage. The benefits of ranked choice voting, taking money out of politics, eliminating gerrymandering, giving states with more people more representation, are all easy to prove as more democratic processes. Most people just don’t understand the statistics enough to see how rigged our election systems are against what people actually want.
https://adamgolding.substack.com/publish/post/113579204
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/z4xNBnusXzysm9mob/votes-per-dollar