US Politics

Difference between a computer and a politician is that you wouldn’t expect a computer to care about you.

But you expect algorithms to provide answers to social problems. Fuck me, it's really hard being an atheist when Christians have all the good cussing.

https://www.wired.com/story/algorithms-supposed-fix-bail-system-they-havent/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/twitter-facial-recognition-bias-race-algorithm-photos-b511827.html

https://deepai.org/publication/algorithmic-extremism-examining-youtube-s-rabbit-hole-of-radicalization

Please stop.

Please stop.

Bruce, this is a theory that has been researched and discussed by academics for half a century. I don't think @eseman was blindly saying its a good idea or would solve the world's problems. Its just a path that humanity might possibly take at some point. Its a speculative theory.

Also, dismissing a futurist theory because of teething problems with contemporary tech is not something that turns out to be the right approach usually.

I don't think @eseman was blindly saying its a good idea or would solve the world's problems.

Making the post pointless at best.

Social problems are, by definition, people problems. Solutions have to start with people and their needs and behaviours. How technology might help shouldn't be the starting point. Just dropping "tech" into a political conversation is silly hand waving.

Also, dismissing a futurist theory because of teething problems with contemporary tech is not something that turns out to be the right approach usually.

The use of algorithms to distance people from the consequences of their actions is a significant problem right now. Which makes thoughtless invocation of tech for social problems truly deserving of a really big fucking kicking.

But you expect algorithms to provide answers to social problems.

No....? I expect algorithms to be a useful tool to enable better policy decisions to be made. We’re barely making use of one of the most powerful tools humanity has ever created to solve problems that profoundly affect peoples’ lives. It’s not a panacea, and I’m not suggesting it is. But there’s literally zero chance that a single human elected representative can even read and fully comprehend all the different legislation in a single congressional year and its wider impacts. To make things more difficult still, we expect that person to perform various other job functions, and be charismatic, and be helpful with our individual drama, and be impervious to self-benefitting corruption. That’s not going to happen.

However, there are probably parts of that job that can be made easier and improved by using the internet/computer algorithms to help compile, process and interweave mass data sets.

I don't think @eseman was blindly saying its a good idea or would solve the world's problems.

Making the post pointless at best.

Social problems are, by definition, people problems. Solutions have to start with people and their needs and behaviours. How technology might help shouldn't be the starting point. Just dropping "tech" into a political conversation is silly hand waving.

Also, dismissing a futurist theory because of teething problems with contemporary tech is not something that turns out to be the right approach usually.
The use of algorithms to distance people from the consequences of their actions is a significant problem right now. Which makes thoughtless invocation of tech for social problems truly deserving of a really big fucking kicking.

Just quoting for posterity.

Just dropping "tech" into a political conversation is silly hand waving.

But he didn't. He suggested that the use of tech is going to increase for policy decisions, which has been and will continue to do so for the forseeable. He wasn't championing the idea or even really suggesting it could solve social problems.

I can see there’s no use discussing this with you. If you’re this frustrated by the notion now, you’re going to have real problems in a few years.

Very good read on the subject.

Apparently the Trump and Biden campaigns spent over $200m on AI and machine learning based advertising in the last election cycle. Nuts!

https://www.csis.org/blogs/technology-policy-blog/evolving-role-artificial-intelligence-and-machine-learning-us-politics

Just for clarity, my previous post wasn’t directed at you.

Also- interesting link, gives some more specifics than I’d encountered, will forward.

The notion in the opinion piece that "With the end of the Trump presidency, we’ve been told that we are entering a new era of accountability" is sadly laughable. Not a sliver of a chance. Zero. Unfortunately you can file this opinion piece under another fart in the wind section.

Ok. ‘Told’ ... did you miss that bit? You seem to conflate the authors opinion with that expressed by the Biden speech writer?

From the article and clearly at odds with the Biden speech and notion that everything going forward is roses;

Cuomo and the Lincoln Project offer an opportunity to finally make that pivot – but it isn’t clear that will happen.

And again...

In the case of the Lincoln Project, the press response is even more significant. The group isn’t an elected official in a public office with inherent relevance and authority. It is instead a pure creation of the media itself – meaning that the press corps effectively gets to decide if the organization faces accountability or not.
Steve Schmidt quits Lincoln Project but defends anti-Trump group's finances
So far, it looks like “not”.

Etc.

With the internet a revised version of Athenian democracy could be achieved, everyone has a right to vote but would probably only exercise it on issues that concern them.

Should Britain leave the European Union?

This is a fundamental issue with any form of social organisation, someone isn’t going to be happy with the results. Wether it’s an autocratic dictator, benign leader or democracy everyone can’t be pleased. But if people are educated to chose in an informed manner and deploy critical reasoning hopefully better decisions would be arrived at. I’d rather have a vote in more issues than have to chose one person or party to act on my behalf, because I don’t agree with any one person on all issues.

Also Brexit wasn’t a properly informed vote, each person had a different idea of what they voted for and it appears no one got what they wanted.

Having the time to form those opinions is a luxury 90% of the population don't have. Its not that they won't do the research, they don't have the resource to.
So decisions end up getting made by the 10%, to the benefit of whoever they decide should get it.

With the internet a revised version of Athenian democracy

I don't even have to look it up to know that sophisticated reliable internet use is probably something around <50% of the population with a giant discrepancy towards educated wealthy people.

The ONS reported that 96% of UK households had internet access in 2020.

In the United States it's a similar statistic. I don't really know what that means though. I'm certain that the statistic is highly demographically skewed. You'd have to dig deeper into those numbers to know what they mean. I'm openly admitting I did not do that.

Actually about 82% and that was five years ago

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/ACS-39.pdf

don't even have to look it up

Perhaps you should.

Last year 10% didn’t have or use the internet

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/%3famp=1

Am not sure I trust the tiny fraction of the population who work in politics to be well informed

What percentage of people live in major cities? Is there a correlation between internet access and living in an urban environment?

Also I really don't know why you have to engage me with negativity. It insulted and surprised me.

1 Attachment

• Rural-Internet-Accesss.pdf

That wasn’t what your statement was about. access can be improved etc etc but continuing the same bipartisan bullshit clearly doesn’t work. No system is perfect but the current one is very flawed.

Though well done for actually bringing some research to the debate this time.

No big deal. My initial reply to you wasn't exactly level headed whatever.

But at least those are the elected ones.
I'm not fine with you deciding for me. I've already chosen a representative.

But I already do decide for you as i vote in the current system. And thus someone else votes for my by proxy (the MP)