Author Topic: Representative democracy may now be becoming obsolete  (Read 7254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thom


Anyway, you really struck a chord with this thread luckybit, hope it can gain some traction.

Not many of his suggestions gain traction. I find this rather unfortunate, because I like luckybit's ideas, even if I don't always agree. His low percentage rate is partly attributable to the frequency with which he fires these out.  ;) Luckybit, perhaps you need a chief operating officer? A prime minister? Or an algo robot to help implement your vision?

Seems like I've had the last word (i.e. stopped all discussion) on every thread I've commented on recently.

I hope this won't be yet another example.

THINK, POST PEOPLE!
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

Anyway, you really struck a chord with this thread luckybit, hope it can gain some traction.

Not many of his suggestions gain traction. I find this rather unfortunate, because I like luckybit's ideas, even if I don't always agree. His low percentage rate is partly attributable to the frequency with which he fires these out.  ;) Luckybit, perhaps you need a chief operating officer? A prime minister? Or an algo robot to help implement your vision?

Offline Thom

 +5% +5% +5% +5% To YOU luckybit, you're really onto something here!

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but I did read your OP and scanned many others.

I agree with the OP we should be looking at this philosophically. I would LOVE to see BitShares strongly consider this and move in this direction.

It will be difficult to implement and take many man hours to accomplish. Extensive testing will be required.

I would like to see a specialized "BOT" scripting language developed to express the rules of the BOT to act as a proxy. We could start with the D in DPOS, call it "Proxy Proof of Stake" if you like or PPoS. Would like to see BM weigh in on this thread, and comment on how these concepts might be employed with the coming "turing complete" scripting additions.

It would be a challenging effort, and a great amount of thought would have to be given to safeguards so we don't end up with a "SkyNet" that circumvents the fundamental purposes of the BitShares ecosystem.

All BOT rules must abide by some sort of "Prime Directive" which cannot be changed without a very large majority of Non-BOT human votes.

Anyway, you really struck a chord with this thread luckybit, hope it can gain some traction.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
What I don't understand is why an algorithm isn't used to filter out delegates who don't fulfil the basic criteria, price feeds, version updates.  It seems those basic criteria, that delegates were originally for before dilution, could be much more automated.  A delegate with a sufficiently unsuccessful past according to the algorithm could be automatically kicked out after fair warning (incase they were a dilution delegate, in which case having them kicked out would mess things up, so they need a good chance to fix things).

That might be a good initial application. At least pop up a red flag at some point and let people decide whether to keep voting for someone who is ineffective by those measures.

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
What I don't understand is why an algorithm isn't used to filter out delegates who don't fulfil the basic criteria, price feeds, version updates.  It seems those basic criteria, that delegates were originally for before dilution, could be much more automated.  A delegate with a sufficiently unsuccessful past according to the algorithm could be automatically kicked out after fair warning (incase they were a dilution delegate, in which case having them kicked out would mess things up, so they need a good chance to fix things).

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
My PTS example was to help illustrate how hard it is for an algo to reflect the fickle whims of a human being (me).

Look, I'm all for experimenting. Your vision may well be a big part of the future and I do hope it can help solve some of the problems (even if it's incapable of addressing all of them). But it's ridiculous to suggest it is the present. A previous system becomes "obsolete" once something better can replace it. I see nothing in your posts indicating that we have arrived at that point yet, only that there is promise for the future...which I admit there is (even if we disagree about its scope of application).

And telling me how bad the current system is does not make an unproven alternative any better...yet!

Isn't that the point? Aren't we an experimental community? So why not experiment with voting?

The only thing I can say with a degree of certainty is what we currently have is broken. It simply is outdated to the point that it seems pointless to vote at all. When you vote do politicians actually obey your fickle whims?

It may take a lot of effort but if we don't want to end up with the same problems we see in congress duplicated here we must change something.

When I say it's outdated I mean other forms of voting have actually been tried. It's proven outdated by academia which spends time studying these subjects. Liquid democracy also shows that improvements can be made to the current processes while algorithmic voting would be a completely new paradigm.

Reference
Liquid Democracy In Simple Terms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 07:21:01 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
My PTS example was to help illustrate how hard it is for an algo to reflect the fickle whims of a human being (me).

Look, I'm all for experimenting. Your vision may well be a big part of the future and I do hope it can help solve some of the problems (even if it's incapable of addressing all of them). But it's ridiculous to suggest it is the present. A previous system becomes "obsolete" once something better can replace it. I see nothing in your posts indicating that we have arrived at that point yet, only that there is promise for the future...which I admit there is (even if we disagree about its scope of application).

And telling me how bad the current system is does not make an unproven alternative any better...yet!

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
How can you get any algorithmic democracy to get the entire population to do something very hard, like maybe live a very poor life to stop global warming, Can an algorithm determine that global warming isn't a problem for us?  Or maybe get us all to do something like dilute Bitshares a tiny bit for an insanely great marketing ploy...?
Either you trust humans or you trust algorithms. Humans in positions of authority are pretty much all corrupt, coerced, manipulated, etc. That is why congress has such low job approval ratings and it will continue to get lower as most people don't really take the current process as if it is something which works.

Sure it's better than nothing at all but it is clearly not working or job approval ratings would be 90% instead of 8%.

An algorithm can determine if global warming is or isn't a problem. In fact it is algorithms which we use to predict weather patterns in the first place. Algorithms are what really are behind decision making because people are too ignorant to make critical decisions without relying on computers (and algorithms). You can believe the military relies on algorithms to make it's decisions so it's really only the voters who basically play pin the tail on the donkey.

I cannot speak for anyone else but I'm not satisfied with the current political process. I don't see why Bitshares should duplicate a process which clearly is already broken. The low job approval ratings are all the proof you need to see that humans aren't good at representative democracy.

I think humans have representative democracy because until recently no one thought anything else was possible. It's really not all that different from why feudalism lasted for so long.

Reference
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 07:14:17 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
You want to turn over my hard fought voting right to a robot?
You already turn over your voting power to human beings. Are they doing a better job than Pandora, Genius and Amazon? Did you vote for the country you see here?

I've been using Pandora for months and it still doesn't understand my taste in music. Amazon is pretty good until I order a book on fairies for my five year old daughter. Then the next time I log in it suggests I might be interested in My Little Pony.
So your alternative is to trust human authority to continue looking out for you? How is that working for you btw?
Two months ago, I was a strong supporter of continuing PTS in some form. Now I see how Alphabar is handling that and I think the BitShares community should disallow his project from using the PTS name. 
Not sure what PTS has to do with this.
Algos take a long time to build, test, validate, refine. It will be years before we can trust them to handle the majority of decision-making. And you have to convince asses like me to cede some control. Control we didn't care about until now!  :)

Algos take a while to get smart but algos are currently analyzing our "Big Data" for profit. You're not even able to benefit from the algorithmic power in any serious way. Sure it learns your music preferences, predicts your search habits, etc, but it is also used to manipulate and exploit you.

So why not use those algorithms to give you new forms of democracy? Americans give congress a job approval rating in the teens. That means 10-20% range on any given day.

We honestly might be better off using the algorithms of Pandora compared to that.


Reference
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 07:23:36 pm by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Brent.Allsop

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 242
    • View Profile
    • Canonizer.com
How can you get any algorithmic democracy to get the entire population to do something very hard, like maybe live a very poor life to stop global warming, Can an algorithm determine that global warming isn't a problem for us?  Or maybe get us all to do something like dilute Bitshares a tiny bit for an insanely great marketing ploy...?

Oh, and a 'bit' may be living and lucky, but it is definitely not phenomenal, or has no phenomenal quality, like redness, or the taste of salt. It can only be interpreted (only IF you know how to do it correctly) as representing or simulating such.  ;)

« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 06:58:33 pm by Brent.Allsop »

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
You want to turn over my hard fought voting right to a robot? I've been using Pandora for months and it still doesn't understand my taste in music. Amazon is pretty good until I order a book on fairies for my five year old daughter. Then the next time I log in it suggests I might be interested in My Little Pony.

Two months ago, I was a strong supporter of continuing PTS in some form. Now I see how Alphabar is handling that and I think the BitShares community should disallow his project from using the PTS name.

Algos take a long time to build, test, validate, refine. It will be years before we can trust them to handle the majority of decision-making. And you have to convince asses like me to cede some control. Control we didn't care about until now!  :)

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Instead of a human being running for "public office" the DAC itself could run for public office. It would know more about us than any human candidate ever could. It be a source of trust for us all. It would be the perfect representative for our particular community.

I think it pays to remember that algorithms are always designed by humans, have limited scope, can be subject to design flaws and implementation errors and can potentially be exploited.

Yes, they have scope to automate various mundane functions, like search and aggregation, but more complicated issues will need a lot of time to refine and protect against potential exploitation.

The design of an algorithm or set thereof to act as a delegate with no human intervention would be quite a task in itself. As a developer, I'd estimate the ballpark complexity of such an 'entity' as being roughly equal to that of the original bitsharesX DAC.

Cheers, Paul.

It's actually not as complex as you think. Conditional preference networks can be built into every DAC. Then you would need a decentralized storage capability which could be supplied by SAFE Network, Storj or something like that so that all the preference data about you can be securely stored. From here the algorithms you'd use already exist and are used by companies like Amazon, Google, etc.

If each DAC has a conditional preference network then as you connect the networks the learning algorithm would have more data to work with, would become more precise, etc. For example if your most private financial data, your posts across many forums, the books you read, websites you visit, and whatever other inputs you give to the algorithm is available then you can train the algorithm by using levers such as "like", "dislike" "ratings" and so on. Eventually it will be able to map out what you like, what you want, even be able to predict what you need such as when you'll run out of milk based on your buying and consumption habits.

Having said all that I don't expect you'd get a perfect algorithm instantly. I also don't think algorithms like these would be static. Each one of us would have our own algorithms which would learn about us over time.

Algorithms only know as much about you as you reveal to them.  People who don't use computers very much would have very ignorant algorithms (most of the world at this point).
It might not apply to most of the world at first but does most of the world have democracy at all? Do rights exist in most of the world? Also if we want to for example guarantee that we can never EVER vote against our inalienable or human rights then only an algorithm can guarantee that.

Don't you wonder how is it we have less rights today than we had generations ago? It's because people can be convinced to vote against their self interest and vote their inalienable rights away. People can also be threatened or coerced into voting for the dictatorship even if they don't really want to. Algorithms can improve these situations by making it a sort of math problem instead of a problem which can be solved by violence, intimidation, bribery, terrorism, etc.

So I can understand why you could say it wouldn't apply to for example the Congo but I also think if you are going to build DACs then why not build them to truly free the world? In the future they'll have computers and these tools will be useful to have exist during that time.
Those who do reveal a lot have to have all that precious information stored securely which isn't currently possible I don't think (but maybe soon using Maidsafe? or similar).
SAFE Network, Storj, you're right it might not be easy to store securely but it's already being collected. "Big Data" is already happening as we speak. Google and Amazon already know more about us than we know about ourselves and instead of using this information to amplify democracy it's being used by advertisers to make profits. I'm thinking we could apply these same algorithms to voting to make our preferences shape our future.


I am intrigued by algorithmic voting.  It currently is not possible though.  The information I have revealed about myself on the current Internet is not an accurate picture of me, as I censor my view points one some issues as I know I'm being spied upon.  So the entire Internet needs a major (and infallible) security upgrade for this to work at all. 
You'd be very surprised how much the Internet knows about you. To be honest while you might not be putting everything online it is highly likely that the Internet knows more about you than any human being could ever know. It certainly knows more about me than any human being will ever know and all of that data isn't being used to my political benefit.

Just look at the candidates you see running for elections? Do they run on platforms which make any sense to you? Am I the only one who thinks they run on platforms which don't make sense anymore? I shouldn't have to pick a candidate anymore when we have the technology to feed ads to me based on by subconscious thought patterns.

But in theory integrating algorithmic voting into direct democracy in a hybrid system sounds good to me.

Those who don't use computers much could be 'simple voters' who get fewer options with a more simple layout  And some people would still prefer to vote for people.  You can't force algorithmic voting on people.

I'm not saying we should force it. It's a similar situation where you cannot force DACs on people, or Bitcoin, or the Internet itself. On the other hand Bitcoin was designed to be decentralized for a reason. People who understand what that reason is will understand why algorithmic voting has advantages.

Place A Vote is going with the algorithmic candidate idea. I think we should at least be able to do better than what they are doing. A DAC can be a perfect algorithmic candidate because if elected and if like you mentioned we have a decentralized storage capability then that DAC could know everything about us. It could represent our interests better than any human being because it could know the most private details about us without us having to give up our privacy. It may be a radical idea to go algorithmic but if you want to attract the brightest minds you have to work on the ideas which have the greatest potential.

References
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/24/replaceing-politicians-with-internet-polls/
http://placeavote.com/app/index.html#!/
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 10:51:06 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline monsterer

Instead of a human being running for "public office" the DAC itself could run for public office. It would know more about us than any human candidate ever could. It be a source of trust for us all. It would be the perfect representative for our particular community.

I think it pays to remember that algorithms are always designed by humans, have limited scope, can be subject to design flaws and implementation errors and can potentially be exploited.

Yes, they have scope to automate various mundane functions, like search and aggregation, but more complicated issues will need a lot of time to refine and protect against potential exploitation.

The design of an algorithm or set thereof to act as a delegate with no human intervention would be quite a task in itself. As a developer, I'd estimate the ballpark complexity of such an 'entity' as being roughly equal to that of the original bitsharesX DAC.

Cheers, Paul.
My opinions do not represent those of metaexchange unless explicitly stated.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline matt608

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
    • View Profile
Algorithms only know as much about you as you reveal to them.  People who don't use computers very much would have very ignorant algorithms (most of the world at this point).

Those who do reveal a lot have to have all that precious information stored securely which isn't currently possible I don't think (but maybe soon using Maidsafe? or similar).

I am intrigued by algorithmic voting.  It currently is not possible though.  The information I have revealed about myself on the current Internet is not an accurate picture of me, as I censor my view points one some issues as I know I'm being spied upon.  So the entire Internet needs a major (and infallible) security upgrade for this to work at all. 

But in theory integrating algorithmic voting into direct democracy in a hybrid system sounds good to me.

Those who don't use computers much could be 'simple voters' who get fewer options with a more simple layout  And some people would still prefer to vote for people.  You can't force algorithmic voting on people.


Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
I think the real world is too complex for a single answer to this, and it may be different approaches for different issues.
I would love algorithmic voting where issues are simple and rules are easy to formulate according to my preference. But many issues are just too complex for that.

On more complex issues I think there is a free playing ground that sits between direct democracy and indirect democracy. That is to delegate votes to others, including voting blocs, that are aligned with your own philosophies and interests, and perhaps are given the right to vote on your behalf on some issues within their expertise and not on others. You could use different blocs on different issues. And blocs themselves may delegate to yet larger blocs, with as many layers as is desired on any issue. Or an individual may decide to vote an issue directly themselves. The flow of your vote through the chain and the rationales could all be completely transparent, and alterable at any time by the individual, giving them ultimate control of their vote. Public algorithms or customised algorithms could be options within this mix, integrating your idea into a more open architecture. To me this would represent ultimate voting freedom and efficiency.

Isn't the point of relying on algorithms based on the fact that the world is too complex for the human brain to handle?

You cannot organize and process all the information on the Internet. You rely on Google to do that for you. So when it's time to vote now you're expected to process all the information in the world to make a political decision? What is the difference here?

In either case your brain will never be able to make a truly wise decision because without algorithms you'll never process most of the information required. So why not let algorithms understand your preferences and make your votes according to that?

You wouldn't have a situation where there are ignorant votes. You could have persons with ignorant preferences. The problem with voting is most of our preferences are conditional so voting on an issue which seems static isn't taking into account all the different conditions in which you might alter your vote or change your mind. Conditional preference networks would take into account all of the little details which would change your mind and learning conditional preference networks grow smarter as it learns your preferences.

So far no one has given me a reason why other people should make decisions for them. People say because it's tradition, or because people like to have leaders, or because people are too ignorant to learn about the issues. The problem is the leaders are just as ignorant as everybody else and don't make wise decisions either because they have to keep winning popularity contests which don't have any rational basis.

An algorithm only has to produce results. There is no popularity contest that keeps an algorithm in use. The algorithm either is accurate for predicting your likes/dislikes, adapting to your preferences, etc or it's not. If it's not then it will continue to learn about you until it evolves into the perfect delegate, the perfect representative, so why would you need a human involved except your own brain and the algorithms?

Find one issue where an algorithm wouldn't be more thorough at processing, more rational at decision making, more reliable? An algorithm cannot be bribed, cannot be coerced, cannot be threatened or tricked into becoming an irrational voter, it would simply be a direct extension of your self interest.

The DAC as the political candidate

Imagine a scenario where we take a DAC which learns about all it's members through conditional preference networks, artificial intelligence, voting history, all kinds of analysis of private financial purchase history?

Instead of a human being running for "public office" the DAC itself could run for public office. It would know more about us than any human candidate ever could. It be a source of trust for us all. It would be the perfect representative for our particular community.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 09:53:27 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads