Technocratic governments

[tonym911]

The failing European countries are now looking to 'technocratic' governments to get them out of the mess. This word has been bandied around quite a bit lately, with very little explanation as to what it means or indeed what it will mean.

Here's the Wiki definition of a technocratic government:

'Technocracy is a form of government where technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. Engineers, scientists, health professionals, and those who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body. In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skilful they are in their field.'

This all sounds good to me, but at the risk of inviting another barrage of abuse, I would suggest that this knowledge-based problem-solving stuff is what computers are best at.

So why don't we just forget about vain, self-serving and basically stupid politicians altogether and give the whole problem to computers to solve?

For the purposes of the discussion and to cut out all the 'ooh no, computers will take over and kill us all with their evil death rays' stuff can we assume a perfect start point, with a perfectly objective plan and no corrupt bosses steering things in their favour.

[Regiment]

Hopefully, more and more control will be given to AI over the next 100 years, unfortunately, there will always be a minority of people who feel hard done by because of it and will try to stop it at all costs.

[CzechItOut]

Someone has to programme the logic into the computers though and how will you avoid that person's bias in the decision making?

[mackie1]

Not to mention the fact that computers have to be programmed by people which will inherently create bias of some kind.

[tonym911]

Get a computer to do the programming. There need be no human element. The basic task/problem is simply to input all the gen that goes into running a country then let the computer balance all the elements and come up with a workable plan based on what you've got and what you want to achieve. A super-duper 'world' version would balance up all the countries so we avoid all the crap we've had up to now.
Smart technology will soon be working out the best/most efficient way to run our houses. This is just the same but on a bigger scale.
Even I'll admit it sounds simplistic - but in the big picture, where's the difficulty really?

[tonym911]

Of course, we can just carry on and let dozy politicians try and make sense of it all but I think their time has come and gone. Take it out of their hands and give it to something with the ability to take everything into account, and not just in the short term either.

[HundredthIdiot]

tonym911 said:

Get a computer to do the programming. There need be no human element. The basic task/problem is simply to input all the gen that goes into running a country then let the computer balance all the elements and come up with a workable plan based on what you've got and what you want to achieve. A super-duper 'world' version would balance up all the countries so we avoid all the crap we've had up to now.
Smart technology will soon be working out the best/most efficient way to run our houses. This is just the same but on a bigger scale.
Even I'll admit it sounds simplistic - but in the big picture, where's the difficulty really?

You're using a tried and trusted mode of thought, which is "I know nothing about this thing, but really, how hard can it be?".

The answer is "very".

[tonym911]

HundredthIdiot said:

You're using a tried and trusted mode of thought, which is "I know nothing about this thing, but really, how hard can it be?".

The answer is "very".

Yes, I confess you're absolutely right. On one level I wish I did know more, but as our politicians repeatedly demonstrate, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'd rather admit to complete ignorance and let the mad thoughts roam free, unencumbered by considerations of practicality.

I still think it's doable though.

[munky]

tonym911 said:

Get a computer to do the programming. There need be no human element. The basic task/problem is simply to input all the gen that goes into running a country then let the computer balance all the elements and come up with a workable plan based on what you've got and what you want to achieve. A super-duper 'world' version would balance up all the countries so we avoid all the crap we've had up to now.
Smart technology will soon be working out the best/most efficient way to run our houses. This is just the same but on a bigger scale.
Even I'll admit it sounds simplistic - but in the big picture, where's the difficulty really?

Haven't you seen The Terminator?

[thinfourth2]

Come on lets be honest

Could it be any worse then winky was?


I'd take a ZX81 with a wobbly ram pack over winky

[HundredthIdiot]

tonym911 said:

I still think it's doable though.

You can put the impossible technical challenge aside - we don't need computers for this at all. We could elect anally retentive civil servants to concoct all sorts of final solutions to our economic problems and follow them through steadfastly, but people don't vote for objectivity, they vote for whoever is going to put more money in their pocket/advance their political ideology.

I guess in your vision of the future, the following exchange might be plausible:

BEREAVED PARENT: My child died because this hospital was underfunded, what are you going to do about it?
ROBOT/VULCAN HEALTH MINISTER: Firstly, your child is dead and we don't have the technology to bring it back to life. Secondly, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, and any remedial policy would have negative overall consequences for the larger population. So in answer to your question, we're going to do precisely nothing.
BEREAVED PARENT: OK, thanks for explaining it. I'll leave you alone now.
ROBOT/VULCAN HEALTH MINISTER: Spiffo. By the way, we've taken the corpse and used it for fertiliser, because that makes economic sense. Is that OK?
BEREAVED PARENT: I guess so. Thanks. <sob>.

[tonym911]

Oddly, apart from the kid dying through underfunding (you'd have a job establishing that), I haven't got much of a problem with the rest of your scenario.

[LeoSayer]

munky said:

Haven't you seen The Terminator?

You can add I, Robot and The Matrix to that as well.

[munky]

LeoSayer said:

munky said:

Haven't you seen The Terminator?

You can add I, Robot and The Matrix to that as well.

Aha, good point. And 'War Games', and probably '2001: A Space Odyssey' as well.

[thinfourth2]

HundredthIdiot said:

You can put the impossible technical challenge aside - we don't need computers for this at all. We could elect anally retentive civil servants to concoct all sorts of final solutions to our economic problems and follow them through steadfastly, but people don't vote for objectivity, they vote for whoever is going to put more money in their pocket/advance their political ideology.

I guess in your vision of the future, the following exchange might be plausible:

BEREAVED PARENT: My child died because this hospital was underfunded, what are you going to do about it?
ROBOT/VULCAN HEALTH MINISTER: Firstly, your child is dead and we don't have the technology to bring it back to life. Secondly, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, and any remedial policy would have negative overall consequences for the larger population. So in answer to your question, we're going to do precisely nothing.
BEREAVED PARENT: OK, thanks for explaining it. I'll leave you alone now.
ROBOT/VULCAN HEALTH MINISTER: Spiffo. By the way, we've taken the corpse and used it for fertiliser, because that makes economic sense. Is that OK?
BEREAVED PARENT: I guess so. Thanks. <sob>.

The current version is

BEREAVED PARENT: My child died because this hospital was underfunded, what are you going to do about it?
LYING HEALTH MINISTER: Firstly, your child is dead and i promise that will do everything in my powers to ensure that this never happens again as i am scared the papers would pick up on this and it might cost me a few votes. Where as in reality i'm going to do absolutely nothing other then lie to you and treat you with total contempt
BEREAVED PARENT: OK, thanks for explaining it. I'll leave you alone now.
LYING HEALTH MINISTER: Vote RED/BLUE/YELLOW tie
BEREAVED PARENT: I guess so. Thanks. <sob>.

[joe_90]

Then the computer will decide that people are the issue.. not the machines.

And we all know what happens then..

/edit late to the party.. bah

[munky]

joe_90 said:

Then the computer will decide that people are the issue.. not the machines.

And we all know what happens then..

/edit late to the party.. bah

Before it gets to that stage though, the computers will probably decide that the NHS and state education are illogical, and privatise both of them to eliminate waste and provide an incentive to fire staff that don't perform. And then privatise government itself.

Ah, hold on... let's do it!

[tonym911]

I know it ruins the fun but just for a minute let's pretend that computers won't turn evil. They never explained why they did that in The Terminator anyway.
OK – how does it feel now? Any better?
Or do we still prefer to leave government to human idiots (who right throughout history actually DO turn evil)?
I'm voting Bender for PM.

[Tyre Tread]

tonym911 said:

I know it ruins the fun but just for a minute let's pretend that computers won't turn evil. They never explained why they did that in The Terminator anyway.
OK – how does it feel now? Any better?
Or do we still prefer to leave government to human idiots (who right throughout history actually DO turn evil)?

Computers do not 'turn evil' they merely operate on pure logic based upon the parameters set by the programming so, if they determine that the logigal solution to reduce the cost of treating people in the NHS is to dispose of the human race entirely since it breeds unhealthy people then it will, given the option and opportunity, implement that process.

Computers don't have feelings or values unless they are programmed in and thne they will be based pon some people/person's values whther it be the programmer, the project funder or a group of people appointed for the task. Whichever, there will always be bias.

[Mikeyboy]

Even if you programme in values a computer will never be able to add a human, emotional element to a decision process. Without it, rule is impossible.

Want to build an extension on your house? Computer says no. Accept that because its a computer saying it anymore than its a person, no? perhaps less so as you won't want to believe that the computer has given it any thought, just said that it doesn't apply to its pre-programmed rules.