[ExI] Fail to the chief?

[William Flynn Wallace]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Testing out systems of policymaking and governance in the small is very
> helpful, since if there is a bug you need to test it for a time roughly
> proportional to the mean time between failure for that kind of bug. Ideally
> you do it independently in parallel to get data faster.
>
> However, social technologies have scaling properties that matter. The
> behavior among 10+ team members is very different from 100+ groups or a
> 100,000+ population. Social dynamics matter: small groups often get effects
> from the individual relationships, while larger groups have anonymity
> effects. Also, the number of minds trying to find loopholes and ways to
> crack the system increases with the group size.
>
> If there is a chance p per participant of finding a problematic loophole,
> the chance that it will be found is 1-(1-p)^N, which becomes large for
> N=-ln(2)/ln(1-p) ~= ln(2)/p. So if p is 0.01, then you need 70 people to
> have about 50% chance of finding the bug. Once N is on the order of
> millions, you can no longer run tests - your system is part of society (or
> is society), so stuff with p less than one in 1.4 million cannot be tested
> away, you have to deal with it as it happens for real.
> ​What are the odds of finding the expertise in a sample of 10 who can
> evaluate whether to issue bonds on the sewer system, hire more police and
> so on.  This is why we have representative democracy - you elect people who
> then hire experts to advise on these decisions.  There is no guarantee that
> the elected have any idea of which experts to hire and when not to listen
> to them, but that's the system.​
>

​In the USA we have the Bill of Rights to take some decisions out of the
purview of the majority.​

​  Neither should the majority make decisions for a town, state, or
country.  Far too much ignorance and lack of education.

Once only landed gentry could vote.  At least that insured that at least
some of them were aware of the bigger issues.  It was proposed here, of
course.

bill w​

>
>
>
>
>
> On 2015-12-20 02:30, Flexman, Connor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Jason Resch < <jasonresch at gmail.com>
>> jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Check out Liquid Democracy, now used at Google:
>>>
>>> http://www.tdcommons.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=dpubs_series
>>>
>>
>> Good luck refining it into something most people will be able to
>> understand enough to trust.  (Not a sarcastic comment: that really is a
>> large problem getting this system deployed on more than niche electorates.)
>>
>
> Perhaps if more companies begin using it like Google does, or we roll it
> out in very sub-national realms, people will slowly become comfortable with
> it? It looks promising enough that it might be worth pushing for on a
> smaller scale, to see how far people can take it before insurmountable
> problems show up.
> Connor
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151221/e6778901/attachment.html>