"I, for one, welcome our new robot overlord."

[LegendTriforce]

Imagine a future in which humanity is able to create a machine that studies all data relevant to governing a country -- crime rates, economy, education, everything. This machine is then placed in charge of this country. The machine will decide on all of the laws, all of the big decisions, based on a hierarchy of human ethics. At the top of this is human life: if a decision can save more human lives than not, said decision will be made. Under human life would be another priority; for example, the right to clean water. This would continue down until the most trivial of benefits. If a decision affects multiple people, the machine will use this hierarchy to sort out what takes priority.

The reason this machine would be made is so that a country could be governed with 100% of the peoples' best interests in mind. No human politicians corrupted by money, power, or a weak sense of judgment. All decisions will be unbiased and based upon the Hierarchy. The machine will never act on its own whims because it will solely follow the processes set out before it. There will also be function for humanity to debate the machine's decisions; if the protests are too great, the machine will add such outcries to its database and use them to improve future computations.

Now, say the decision to make this machine a reality is up to you alone. Would you trust this machine with humanity? Why or why not? What sort of priorities should be placed in the Hierarchy? Do you think there are any foreseeable flaws with this machine? I'm very curious as to what everyone thinks on this subject.

 

[Plumpyfoof]

The problem is that there is going to come a time where the robot needs to make a decision between two or more of the fundamental human ethics and no doubt a human could better use intuition to alleviate the situation, I imagine the robot choosing the higher priority and steamrolling through the problem.

Another thing, if crime got excessive for whatever reason or a war broke out. If human life were on top of the list, our country would be overrun within the week. The robots only choose to segregate the "bad eggs", but how does it decide who should be removed? And how do you justify to a robot a fair trial for an honest mistake. Robots a ruthless because they don't understand what it means to make a mistake or more accurately they can't understand the distinction between honest mistake and lying about making a mistake.

Robot government would suck, robot enforcers would be awesome.

 

[Blu·Ray]

I agree with plumpy above me, we should keep the important decisions to humans. As you state yourself in the OP:

The reason this machine would be made is so that a country could be governed with 100% of the peoples' best interests in mind. No human politicians corrupted by money, power, or a weak sense of judgment. All decisions will be unbiased and based upon the Hierarchy. The machine will never act on its own whims because it will solely follow the processes set out before it. There will also be function for humanity to debate the machine's decisions; if the protests are too great, the machine will add such outcries to its database and use them to improve future computations.

Since when does the hierarchy make better decisions overall than democracy? As far as I know hierarchies have spawned nothing but trouble throughout human history. Yes, the machine would do what it is programmed to, and not just what benefits itself the most, but this would make for a no-exception policy where little technical details would make all the difference. How would we make new laws if there are no politicians? How would we get a public debate if all decisions were instantly made by a robot?



The solution to corrupted politicians is not to substitute them with a cold and cynical machine, but rather to vote for a trustworthy honest person that you believe wants the best for your country.

 

[An abnormal Cybran]

I see a Skynet scenario there. Lets not build a self- aware AI until we know how to control it.

 

[Oryx]

I think this all comes down to whether you believe technology can replicate a human brain. If it can, then it can replicate and then improve, such as taking out needs for off time and emotional concerns while keeping sympathy for emotional pain. If it can't, then the machines built will necessarily be inferior to the human brain.

Personally, I feel that it's completely possible to make technology that will be smarter than a human brain and more capable of making decisions, but it's all about how it's programmed which would make it impossible to make it perfect - there will always be human error, because someone has to program it.

 

[Rukario]

Do you want SkyNet?
Because this is how you get SkyNet.

 

[Blu·Ray]

I see where you're coming from, however, I'm having trouble imagining an example of such a scenario.

What if the decisions were open to debate beforehand? As in, before the decisions are actually made (in a "proposal-stage"), humans have the option to send in their concerns to the machine. Since it is a machine, it is able to examine every single concern, and if the concerns make a strong point, then the machine could go back on its proposal. However, if this capability were to exist, we'd have to be careful. If the machine has too much of a leeway in that regard it may be possible to exploit it somehow.

I don't think that the machine would work very well as a supreme ruler. Even in the scenario that you are proposing where humans can create an inquiry or suggest a change, the machine will still just do what it is told to. I don't think that having a machine in this position would be a good idea, as it is simply unable to act in the way that is best for humanity without human consent. I don't think that machines should rule our world, but I'm all in for having the rules enforced or suggested enhanced by machines.

True, true. I don't think the current computer structure can do it (the binary structure, i.e. everything is 1s and 0s), but if we were able to make a computer structure that acted more like a brain (which has been done before, albeit we're not very far into it) I think it's very well beyond possible. This is an interesting podcast on the subject of brain-like computers, if anyone is interested.

That podcast was really interesting! I like the moral dilemmas that are posed in their discussion, and the technologies discussed in this podcast really give a sense of how tiny our current accomplishments are in terms of replicating the human brain. Thought processes are complicated, but I'm looking forward to a future where even more of the burdensome work can be handled by robots. I want machines for our convenience, not to rule over us.