A bold idea to replace politicians | César Hidalgo


Is it just me, or are there other people here that are a little bit
disappointed with democracy? (Applause) So let’s look at a few numbers. If we look across the world, the median turnout
in presidential elections over the last 30 years has been just 67 percent. Now, if we go to Europe and we look at people that participated
in EU parliamentary elections, the median turnout in those elections is just 42 percent. Now let’s go to New York, and let’s see how many people voted
in the last election for mayor. We will find that only
24 percent of people showed up to vote. What that means is that,
if “Friends” was still running, Joey and maybe Phoebe
would have shown up to vote. (Laughter) And you cannot blame them
because people are tired of politicians. And people are tired of other people
using the data that they have generated to communicate with
their friends and family, to target political propaganda at them. But the thing about this
is that this is not new. Nowadays, people use likes
to target propaganda at you before they use your zip code
or your gender or your age, because the idea of targeting people
with propaganda for political purposes is as old as politics. And the reason why that idea is there is because democracy
has a basic vulnerability. This is the idea of a representative. In principle, democracy is the ability
of people to exert power. But in practice, we have to delegate
that power to a representative that can exert that power for us. That representative is a bottleneck, or a weak spot. It is the place that you want to target
if you want to attack democracy because you can capture democracy
by either capturing that representative or capturing the way
that people choose it. So the big question is: Is this the end of history? Is this the best that we can do or, actually, are there alternatives? Some people have been thinking
about alternatives, and one of the ideas that is out there
is the idea of direct democracy. This is the idea of bypassing
politicians completely and having people vote directly on issues, having people vote directly on bills. But this idea is naive because there’s too many things
that we would need to choose. If you look at the 114th US Congress, you will have seen that
the House of Representatives considered more than 6,000 bills, the Senate considered
more than 3,000 bills and they approved more than 300 laws. Those would be many decisions that each person would have to make a week on topics that they know little about. So there’s a big cognitive
bandwidth problem if we’re going to try to think about
direct democracy as a viable alternative. So some people think about the idea
of liquid democracy, or fluid democracy, which is the idea that you endorse
your political power to someone, who can endorse it to someone else, and, eventually, you create
a large follower network in which, at the end, there’s a few people
that are making decisions on behalf of all of their followers
and their followers. But this idea also doesn’t solve
the problem of the cognitive bandwidth and, to be honest, it’s also quite similar
to the idea of having a representative. So what I’m going to do today is
I’m going to be a little bit provocative, and I’m going to ask you, well: What if, instead of trying
to bypass politicians, we tried to automate them? The idea of automation is not new. It was started more than 300 years ago, when French weavers decided
to automate the loom. The winner of that industrial war
was Joseph-Marie Jacquard. He was a French weaver and merchant that married the loom
with the steam engine to create autonomous looms. And in those autonomous looms,
he gained control. He could now make fabrics that were
more complex and more sophisticated than the ones they
were able to do by hand. But also, by winning that industrial war, he laid out what has become
the blueprint of automation. The way that we automate things
for the last 300 years has always been the same: we first identify a need, then we create a tool
to satisfy that need, like the loom, in this case, and then we study how people use that tool to automate that user. That’s how we came
from the mechanical loom to the autonomous loom, and that took us a thousand years. Now, it’s taken us only a hundred years to use the same script
to automate the car. But the thing is that, this time around, automation is kind of for real. This is a video that a colleague of mine
from Toshiba shared with me that shows the factory
that manufactures solid state drives. The entire factory is a robot. There are no humans in that factory. And the robots are soon
to leave the factories and become part of our world, become part of our workforce. So what I do in my day job is actually create tools that integrate
data for entire countries so that we can ultimately have
the foundations that we need for a future in which we need
to also manage those machines. But today, I’m not here
to talk to you about these tools that integrate data for countries. But I’m here to talk to you
about another idea that might help us think about how to use
artificial intelligence in democracy. Because the tools that I build
are designed for executive decisions. These are decisions that can be cast
in some sort of term of objectivity — public investment decisions. But there are decisions
that are legislative, and these decisions that are legislative
require communication among people that have different points of view, require participation, require debate, require deliberation. And for a long time,
we have thought that, well, what we need to improve democracy
is actually more communication. So all of the technologies that we have
advanced in the context of democracy, whether they are newspapers
or whether it is social media, have tried to provide us
with more communication. But we’ve been down that rabbit hole, and we know that’s not
what’s going to solve the problem. Because it’s not a communication problem, it’s a cognitive bandwidth problem. So if the problem is one
of cognitive bandwidth, well, adding more communication to people is not going to be
what’s going to solve it. What we are going to need instead
is to have other technologies that help us deal with
some of the communication that we are overloaded with. Think of, like, a little avatar, a software agent, a digital Jiminy Cricket — (Laughter) that basically is able
to answer things on your behalf. And if we had that technology, we would be able to offload
some of the communication and help, maybe, make better decisions
or decisions at a larger scale. And the thing is that the idea
of software agents is also not new. We already use them all the time. We use software agents to choose the way that we’re going
to drive to a certain location, the music that we’re going to listen to or to get suggestions
for the next books that we should read. So there is an obvious idea
in the 21st century that was as obvious as the idea of putting together a steam engine
with a loom at the time of Jacquard. And that idea is combining
direct democracy with software agents. Imagine, for a second, a world in which, instead of having
a representative that represents you and millions of other people, you can have a representative
that represents only you, with your nuanced political views — that weird combination
of libertarian and liberal and maybe a little bit
conservative on some issues and maybe very progressive on others. Politicians nowadays are packages,
and they’re full of compromises. But you might have someone
that can represent only you, if you are willing to give up the idea that that representative is a human. If that representative
is a software agent, we could have a senate that has
as many senators as we have citizens. And those senators are going to be able
to read every bill and they’re going to be able
to vote on each one of them. So there’s an obvious idea
that maybe we want to consider. But I understand that in this day and age, this idea might be quite scary. In fact, thinking of a robot
coming from the future to help us run our governments sounds terrifying. But we’ve been there before. (Laughter) And actually he was quite a nice guy. So what would the Jacquard loom
version of this idea look like? It would be a very simple system. Imagine a system that you log in
and you create your avatar, and then you’re going
to start training your avatar. So you can provide your avatar
with your reading habits, or connect it to your social media, or you can connect it to other data, for example by taking
psychological tests. And the nice thing about this
is that there’s no deception. You are not providing data to communicate
with your friends and family that then gets used in a political system. You are providing data to a system
that is designed to be used to make political decisions
on your behalf. Then you take that data and you choose
a training algorithm, because it’s an open marketplace in which different people
can submit different algorithms to predict how you’re going to vote,
based on the data you have provided. And the system is open,
so nobody controls the algorithms; there are algorithms
that become more popular and others that become less popular. Eventually, you can audit the system. You can see how your avatar is working. If you like it,
you can leave it on autopilot. If you want to be
a little more controlling, you can actually choose that they ask you every time they’re going
to make a decision, or you can be anywhere in between. One of the reasons
why we use democracy so little may be because democracy
has a very bad user interface. And if we improve the user
interface of democracy, we might be able to use it more. Of course, there’s a lot of questions
that you might have. Well, how do you train these avatars? How do you keep the data secure? How do you keep the systems
distributed and auditable? How about my grandmother,
who’s 80 years old and doesn’t know how to use the internet? Trust me, I’ve heard them all. So when you think about an idea like this,
you have to beware of pessimists because they are known to have
a problem for every solution. (Laughter) So I want to invite you to think
about the bigger ideas. The questions I just showed you
are little ideas because they are questions
about how this would not work. The big ideas are ideas of: What else can you do with this if this would happen to work? And one of those ideas is,
well, who writes the laws? In the beginning, we could have
the avatars that we already have, voting on laws that are written
by the senators or politicians that we already have. But if this were to work, you could write an algorithm that could try to write a law that would get a certain
percentage of approval, and you could reverse the process. Now, you might think that this idea
is ludicrous and we should not do it, but you cannot deny that it’s an idea
that is only possible in a world in which direct democracy
and software agents are a viable form of participation. So how do we start the revolution? We don’t start this revolution
with picket fences or protests or by demanding our current politicians
to be changed into robots. That’s not going to work. This is much more simple, much slower and much more humble. We start this revolution by creating
simple systems like this in grad schools, in libraries, in nonprofits. And we try to figure out
all of those little questions and those little problems that we’re going to have to figure out
to make this idea something viable, to make this idea something
that we can trust. And as we create those systems that have
a hundred people, a thousand people, a hundred thousand people voting
in ways that are not politically binding, we’re going to develop trust in this idea, the world is going to change, and those that are as little
as my daughter is right now are going to grow up. And by the time my daughter is my age, maybe this idea, that I know
today is very crazy, might not be crazy to her
and to her friends. And at that point, we will be at the end of our history, but they will be
at the beginning of theirs. Thank you. (Applause)

Posts Tagged with…

Reader Comments

  1. Robert Deskins

    In truth the important question is how you choose your leaders, is it for life?
    Do they have any duty to the people?
    What kind of accountability will they be subject to?
    How much governmental & personal transparency will they be subject to?

    Right now in the u.s. our politicians are too often careerists they have no duty to the people in practice,
    there is little to no accountability no matter how blatant & grossly they violate laws and, the people are not given proper access to information about what work they are doing officially or, their personal financial activity which cannot be treated as private when a person is in public office lest corruption sets in…….
    Are elections are a circus show of gerrymandering, voter purging, ballot tampering &, ad hominem attacking of ones opponents.
    Our politicians are mostly bought & paid for and they are complicit in degrading the standard of living in the country to keep people desperate AND hopeless because desperate AND hopeless populations are easier to oppress.
    This man solution is the same as the others, who will control the automated government?
    What biases will get written into it's decision making algorithms?
    It will of course have biases, an algorithm has to be told what to try to achieve, in the industry they call it being "weighted" or "biased"…… And the same people will buy control of the automation that bought control of the politicians by bribing the automation programming companies.

    As long as our political/administrative decisions are subject to our economic system we will be subject to our economic system and our economic system is a weapon in disguise predicted upon the people based on the lie of the infinite growth model and and a whole lot of bankster switcheroo bullshit- THIS IS INCONTROVERTIBLE!
    PROFIT IS AN END UNTO ITS SELF AND THE ONLY END TO SEEK, WITH WEALTH COMES THE POWER TO CONTROL THE SYSTEM DIRECTLY BY WEALTH EXPENDITURE OR INDIRECTLY AS BY JUST HAVING THE WEALTH TO DO SO MAKES YOUR OPINION MORE IMPORTANT.
    THIS DOESN'T EVEN CONSIDER THE OPPORTUNITIES TO CORRUPT THE SYSTEM IN ONES FAVOR THAT OUR SYSTEM ALLOWS

  2. Mad Geo

    This "bold idea" is so old that you could find it even in some evangelical films back in the 80's.
    The AI leader was The Beast, by the way. LOL

  3. Taav Jorden

    Here is to the day the idea is no longer crazy! 👍 Today, we learn, we grow, and we make the world with our own efforts and money!

  4. gothic pagan

    Many decision and rules, made for no good reason. The answer to the problems we have is WW3. Society is getting out of controle, we are killing each other and the planet we live on

  5. Russell Paine

    Facebook, Twitter and Google have already shown us how the programmers and technology elites control information, manipulate our communications and influence the populous according to their values, whims! Humans must remain the most important of all creations, even their own.

  6. The Chronicles Of CRISS

    why not try to design a system where communication is less overwhelming, instead of replacing humans. it should be humans that make decisions for humans. if the politicians are doing their job wrong, replace them with other politicians that are doing their job properly.

  7. Felix Niederhauser

    Direct Democracy like Switzerland has it, is a good way to govern and have politicians under controll.
    However, people have to be educated and must know, that voting is not a choice only,but a responsibility.

  8. Denis T

    Majority of humans are idiots, many of them are evil, alot of them are mentally ill or just want to see the world burn. How would it work to have all of them represented and vote on things?

  9. SpaceManAust

    No way this can work if you can program them then they can be hacked and without being traced most of the time and will make things worse because we will end up slave to a AI that will eventually be trusted to control the robotic police force and all parts of owe life, just look at how all AI that are self aware end up turning on humans and it is not hard to see why look at what we do to each other with wars and so on why wouldn't they.

  10. SpaceManAust

    Cool I wonder what the vote would be if they wanted to vote kill all whites or no believers?
    Some how I don't think I would like it, I just have this feeling.

  11. Juliawarfield12. Warfield

    No thanks! Al would be nothing,but a programed tool for some meglamaniac and their propaganda specialists to hide behind giving said meglamaniac impermeable power, anonymity, and protection. It would not be a living breathing tool such as Mr Hildago. No it would be a heartless emotionly steril tool put in place for one purpose to manipulate and control the Jelly like masses. As I said no thanks!

  12. Emily Moran

    There are SO many issues with this! My greatest concerns are A) automating the process of democracy risks MORE apathy, as people could participate without even reading the question or being challenged to update their opinions, and B) the fact that algorithms are opaque to most people and can be hacked.
    I think this solution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUee1I69nFs) – in which randomly selected people debate an issue and propose and vote on solutions – has better potential, as it would theoretically get around the issue of groups being over- or under-represented in the population that actually makes decisions and the members of the team that is voting on an issue are given an opportunity to educate themselves on it and modify their opinions through discussion.
    However, there is potential in this algorithmic approach to play a useful advisory role – perhaps to identify concerns or level of support for policies.

  13. alex leonard

    B"H… Cant even predict what I want to type. The avatar will overwhelm individuals with details they will have to pretty soon give up and allow it to "choose" for them. Very Dangerous. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst system, but better than anything else."

  14. CNN is Fake News

    Fortunately the US is not a 'Democracy' but a 'Constitutional Republic'. The UK and its Commonwealth is a Constitutional Monarchy. So who is the speaker talking about? India is often cited as "the world's largest democracy". My suspicion is that the speaker is little more than a political hack. I may be wrong in this case, but generally TED Talks are dominated by hacks, so I won't bother watching.

  15. DieNetaDie

    Organised Criminals -> Mafia
    Organised Politicians -> Political Parties
    Abolish political parties to level the playing field so we can jail politicians

  16. Proud Guy

    We should be on our knees with gratitude to our fore-fathers (and mothers), who gave their blood and sweat to slowly create this democratic system we now enjoy. Most of the people around the world can only dream of the freedom and prosperity we have. Our democracy is under threat from the far left. They attack every democratic institution. MeToo attacks due process and the presumption on innocence. Antifa, SJWs and Social media companies attack free speech, which we must have to maintain democracy. The far left attacks the independence of the police and judiciary.

  17. Proud Guy

    We do not want everyone to vote. Many do not know the issues at hand or the platforms of the parties. Many are too busy to learn about it or simply do not care to know. 10% of the population has an IQ of less than 82. Many of the concepts may be to difficult for them to grasp. A vote turnout of 75% may actually be optimal.

  18. Leo

    The true representative in the system proposed isn't the algorithm, the avatar, but the one that writes the algorithm, the one that programs the avatar. The power would lie with him.

    This guy has good ideas and probably good intentions, but what he proposes would probably not be a democracy. It would be something else, something different. If you want a democracy, there's no other way. You have to take part on the political process somehow.

  19. Fred Pennington

    When laws can be violated, such as has happened against our Constitution; then,there is no way to make a law which will accommodate all seemingly necessary activities of human behavior; except maybe with locations designated where a law should not apply; creating a conflict of interests? Does this view have any resemblance to how Drug laws have had an evolutionary history?

  20. Kane O

    What a load of crap? NOT everything may be automated and these pseudo scientists miss the basic premise that life is messy. Deal with it!

  21. Rhonda T

    This guy displays an entire misunderstanding of our government. This is exactly why we have a democratic republic, because real democracy is just mob rule under another name.

  22. Rhonda T

    The government creates issues like a million laws that only it can fix, now that it created it—this is the problem of government we need to solve and the Founding Fathers has the answer already—-limit government to a very narrow scope.

  23. Jean-Pierre De Vent

    But it's like politicians are not representing the people but they do what they think is best for the people. This is not always the same;

  24. KelMaster Construction

    Unless each individual is capable of understanding and writing his or her own code to create a personal representative algorithm , trusting a software language that in unknown to most as the representative to speak on the individual's behalf is not only foolish, it will be our demise. Yet again another person thinks they have solved the problem by creating more problems. Open source software is not impervious to hidden code, and this idea that as long as the software is open source, we will all be fairly represented is a nothing but a pipe dream.

    Government's role is simple, and it's role was clearly explained in the Constitution of the United States. Solving the problems of Government should not be predicated on more government, nor should it simply be considered a problem of voters inability to streamline their intent. If, and this is a BIG IF, all government agencies and laws were placed under the scrutiny of Our Constitution, most of the unconstitutional roles of the Government would dissolve, taking with them 90% of the problems that Government creates.

    Mankind was born to free, without an undue burden of Government, where the individual governs themselves, and the only role that Government has is to govern those that infringe on another's freedom. As far as I can tell, the majority of personal rights and property rights are not being infringed by their fellow Americans, it is being infringed by the Government. We don't need Artificial Intelligence to decide how we are to be controlled/governed.

    We pay our servants to live like Kings and cast the laws upon us of which they are immune from adhering to. No amount of software will eliminate the corruption of power. The only way to minimize Government corruption is to minimize Government and the Control Governments have over the people. Revolutions are always a result of an overreaching arm of the law.

    The Constitution of the United States of America is a miracle of Man, and if it is followed to the letter, all of the Government overreach could be eliminated, which means there will be less laws to vote on, which negates any ignorant necessity for a digital representative. Technology cannot solve human nature.

  25. EL.NANNA

    The idea sounds great aside from the fact that AI can be manipulated since it's controlled and regulated by big corporations.

  26. Mike Franz

    No, this idea is not that crazy. It's an implication of the fact that humans are incompetent and corruptible and they must be replaced everywhere as technology enables and ASAP.
    We don't have an alternative in the modern age where the stake on idiots with political and financial power is survival of the human race.
    Yes, the unmanned politics and finance system can be hacked but this problem of its dynamic security is much more solvable than relying on the human psyche and moral.
    Actually, retiring the politicians and financiers will solve the problems with the environment, wars, and employment.

  27. Ryan Wheeler

    The reason why direct democracy would never work is that it would stifle the opinions of the minority, and favor those of the majority. Liquid democracy is just direct democracy, but someone else goes to the polls for you. Your proposition is simply direct democracy. The problem you're trying to solve with direct democracy is the number of issues voted on, not the glaring issue. That issue being, as previously stated, the end of the voice of the people. Rather, it is a voice for the popular vote, which would destroy the voice of the minorities you claim to protect.

  28. world peace

    Interesting! Very interesting. If this is the only way to get rid of Nethenyaho, Bolton Pompeo Pelosi schumer and Trump I am all for it. In fact I will develop the software.

  29. Gene Shull

    The FIRST thing that George Dubaya did, was replace Paper Ballot voting machines with Las Vegas Gaming Machines for DESIRED OUTCOMES!

  30. mark

    Another scary AI pusher! Working as an engineer in AI/Autonomy I get a first hand look at the coverup and lack of control we really have over these systems. Big money drives it all and share holders are the driving force. The latest is the removing human interaction and allowing the AI to make the target decision and execution. The other issue is the AI always eventually comes to the realization that the human slows them down…guess who the target becomes? Morons like this just preach the ideals and hide the facts…I'm sure he is getting a good paycheck out of these seminars.

  31. Viking

    A well presented but a horribly flawed idea. Re-read history as written before 1945 and study human nature. Ultimately civilization will collapse in a system run by the high standard of ignorance which the average possess. Without the few creative geniuses and social outliers we would be living in caves. America prospered because we had a small and brilliant group of designers who knew the foundation of success was freedom. Less government more success. More government oversight? Strict adherence to foundational law? You know….stuff that works.

  32. Kirk Dubielewicz

    It is not a good Idea until we have at least 100years of PEACE on earth. We need to ban Lobbying, Party's, and donations and have fully secured singe paper ballot.

  33. GOOD EARTH

    There should be proportional representation of voting rights, community wise ; then one minority community by virtue of its enblock voting, should not impose it's rights on the majority ; this is what is happening in minority dominated areas of India ; when the voting rights of the third child is taken away, the incentive for one community to dominate over the other diminishes ; besides, it helps in nation building by concerving it's natural resources ; besides, the families with more than two children should be taxed suitably to make up for the loss such families are causing to the country and its resources !

  34. Pawan Kumar

    Technology is galloping at a very fast rate. We have no choice but to use it to to help humans lead better lives. Democracy, the best of all evils, is needed but it requires lot of improvements. Technology (AI or KI or whatever later) will help surely. In 2119, people will laugh at how primitively we lived in 2019. Natures law of change.

  35. Mads Kildegaard Larsen

    And when the system is hacked? Dictatorship. No the solution is education, education, education – that is the basis for at good democracy, so we stop from falling to propaganda. It's that simple.

  36. john smith

    Should be titled, “a better way to collect voter data”….not to change politics. Common people are ignorant, thats why Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

  37. Aunty Mammalia

    Wow, I'm imagining information and input on a county, state and national level that we participate in from our home via our computers and phones. I personally would love to get rundowns of what "our" representatives are doing, what the issues are and then some kind of input device from the citizens, in a way I could understand, and in areas that I deem pertinent. Like, I'd check into my county app and get something like "Good morning, Aunty, would you like to view the County Manifesto for today?" And then I'd choose what I want to see and vote on from a schedule of discussions, who is participating, perhaps a little blurb on players and their backgrounds/habits in decisions they've made, and also maybe what makes each issue pertinent. Sounds like a lot, but these days this could take a few minutes of time to someone who took the time to do it. And we'd really get to know the people who do represent us. We'd learn what questions to ask. We'd learn how decisions affect other decisions. We'd learn what was going on. I know Mr. Hidalgo was talking AI, and presented ideas that are beyond my comprehension to be sure. But we have to start somewhere. I don't know much about technology and less about government procedures, but would love to learn more and participate in a way that counts, on a daily basis, even. Or even a weekly one. Just voting does not seems to be enough, anymore. I know this sounds incredibly naive, but hey, I know very little, and it seems that now we get our information after the fact. I'd like to be able to participate before and during and have an impact on outcomes. And Mr. Hidalgo, with his presentation, opened the idea that this is, in some way, possible even now.

  38. K' Leung

    I like the idea of being able to vote each bill. I know these are little ideas, the one already pointed out is how to keep data secure? Who would fund this project? Will our votes be weight equally? What about bots? How do you train the AI to weed out all the false information so we can make informed decision that aren't biased?

  39. sumarianson

    I foresee a future where we can vote on a particular decision such as whether to go to war with a country or be offensive in a military way or a covert manner. Our decision might be ours directly, left to the government, left to A.I. left to a delegated person who could be anyone (in government or a friend who you trust). It would have stopped such atrocities as the gulf war, Syrian war, Afghanistan war, The Bay of Tolkien and the Vietnam war. The first and second world wars (which were for profit) The overthrow of legitimate leaders as in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and many other countries by stealth. The future is A.I but a controlled one. I foresee that all criminal hearings and courts will be dealt with by A.I. and not be prone to bribery, coercion or blackmail or other incentives. This is the future. Politicians say what they like to get in power and then do what they like to maintain it. It must be stopped. The UK voting to leave the EU and not having done so more than 3 years later should wake us up.

  40. Lorenz A

    Has anyone noticed TED = neutral, facts and TEDX= bais, emotion, leftist, flavor of the month topics…? The difference is staggering.

  41. eric morgan

    It's true, Western people are losing confidence in the Democratic process, but it was planned that way.
    The idea of the party system was to avoid individual politicians form being compromised.
    It was and is, the aim of the Progressive Movement to infiltrate parties as Trojan Horses, or a Sleeper if you prefer.
    We can see it daily, where Rightwing or Conservative politicians are voting for legislation utterly at odds with those values, and of the voters wishes.
    I personally Have Absolutely ZERO Trust in any voting system that relies on Computer Security.

  42. clayton mccormick

    direct democracy commonly referred to as mob rule though sending all the politicians lawyers and the unwilling to work on a cruise then sink the ship has it's appeal. no it is a responsibility issue 90% will not even take responsibility for themselves automating this will not help remember the roman citizens voted bead and circuses until rome fell.

  43. First34

    interesting, but the current algorithyms like facebook or google wouldnt work. also people change, and not all decisions are predictible (meaning no data in this context). but we could try it in small scale, or in a trial, I would be curious on the results

  44. Fat Rat

    The U.S. Political System isn't broken. Not saying it couldn't use some updating but it's not broken. Identify the problems and find solutions. The U.S. is the only country that people are lining up to get in and some die trying. The only country where people complain but won't leave to the country they believe is better. Just leave and make room for those want to join the greatest country ever. It this offends you it's because you need to leave. Ai will take away personal responsibility. Ai is just another way of control like the MSM. Don't deny that MSM isn't trying to control us. If you don't watch that c rap, the person next to you is. They are full of it. I see another salesman trying to peddle his c rap. It always starts with you have a problem and I can fix it. Very first sentence. This is exactly how people get scammed.

  45. spikeymikey222

    The audience are cowards, notice have many clapped when he asked the question. This is world is f*cked, people need to take control.

  46. Caleb Johnson

    Who builds the robots?, also if your just choosing an ideology to represent than there's no room for independents or people who don't identify with a commonplace ideology.

  47. Julian D

    This could be amazing. Could be terrifying.
    In the end there needs to be very clearly defined parameters around what can be voted on and what can’t. Meta law is unimaginably important in these waters.

  48. Ayse Blogosphere

    This is an interesting idea but it lacks scale! Nassim taleb always argues that political views are meaningless in the absense of scale. We could start by implementing this for only neighborhood or district decisions so that people have skin in the game. No one should be voting on matters that they don't have any skin in the game with

  49. Spookyhoobster

    It's not our democracy that is the issue, it's the radicalism, outrage culture, and echo chambers. These issues aren't going to magically go away with automation.

  50. Dennis Tucker

    I strongly support this idea. I would also support extending this concept to the Judicial system. It is the only way to remove error due to human values. Errors due to special interest groups, lobbyists, bribes, re-election concerns, power hungriness and other things.

  51. Hasmatt99

    This is a Technocracy dictatorship, you will have no vote! The ai will vote for you, taxation without representation legislation without representation, by unelected boards as the u.n. globalist system of control by bilderberg Technocracy an banking satellite world government, you are a dictatorial socialist behind the Technocracy certain! Of the wizard!

  52. Todd Marshall

    Disappointed with democracy? Where have you seen it? It doesn't work at all with more than 50 people involved. In the USA 500,000 are involved. It's a giant "least ugly" contest!

  53. Scott Wallace

    It's easy to improve democracy make politicians liable for their actions if they don't leave the country in a better state than they found it jail them that alone would stop the self serving arseholes even going into politics

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *