The problem with algocracy is someone has to define the laws in which the algorithm has to base it’s decisions. And if someone is writing those laws, how can we know they’re impervious to corruption.
No system, made or operated by humans, is impervious to flaws; by design, we have our shortcomings. However, the challenge lies in creating the least flawed system, safeguarding it from our biases. This involves crafting a system that automates away the potential for corruption and greed, yet maintains room for human intervention to prevent a rigid “computer says no” outcome.
By using open-source development methods and absolute transparency; algorithms could be developed openly, visible to all. Furthermore, to make it even more user-friendly — not just for algo developers — we could employ LLMs. This would allow anyone to converse with a bot, querying about the rationale behind laws, their fairness, and so on. If perceived as unfair, one can present their argument to the bot, which then channels the feedback into the system for potential amendments.
The entire procedure would then be under continuous peer review.
The problem with algocracy is someone has to define the laws in which the algorithm has to base it’s decisions. And if someone is writing those laws, how can we know they’re impervious to corruption.
Ipso custodiet custodiet.
No system, made or operated by humans, is impervious to flaws; by design, we have our shortcomings. However, the challenge lies in creating the least flawed system, safeguarding it from our biases. This involves crafting a system that automates away the potential for corruption and greed, yet maintains room for human intervention to prevent a rigid “computer says no” outcome.
By using open-source development methods and absolute transparency; algorithms could be developed openly, visible to all. Furthermore, to make it even more user-friendly — not just for algo developers — we could employ LLMs. This would allow anyone to converse with a bot, querying about the rationale behind laws, their fairness, and so on. If perceived as unfair, one can present their argument to the bot, which then channels the feedback into the system for potential amendments.
The entire procedure would then be under continuous peer review.