308
14 Summary: What’s Wrong with AI?
society to drop any of these values. Maybe there are even more values to consider.
For example, I have been thinking about possible ways to upgrade democracy, by
unleashing collective intelligence and constructive collective action, particularly on
a local level.
96 New formats such as City Olympics or a Climate City Cup
97 could
establish a new paradigm of innovation and change in a way that can engage all
stakeholders in a bottom-up way, including civil society. In fact, networks of cities
and the regions around them could become a third pillar of transformation besides
nations and global corporations.
14.3.7 Fairness
I want to end this contribution with a discussion of the power of fairness. People
have often asked: Is it good that everyone has one vote? Shouldn’t we have a system
in which smart people have more weight? Shouldn’t we replace the democratic
“one man one vote” principle by a “one dollar one vote” system? (Btw, today we
probably have the latter, because of voter manipulation by “big nudging”.) Experimental evidence about the “wisdom of crowds” surprisingly suggests that, giving
people different weights, whatever the criteria are, does not improve results.
98 On the
contrary, studies in collective intelligence show that largely unequal influence on a
debate will reduce social intelligence.
99 Diversity of information sources, opinions,
and solution approaches is what makes collective intelligence work.
In conclusion, it seems a fair system based on the principle of equality is the best.
In fact, it can be mathematically shown for many complex model systems that they
will evolve towards an optimal state if and only if interactions are symmetrical.
100
If symmetry is broken, all sorts of things can happen. However, one can surely
say that a hierarchical system or one controlled by utilitarian principles will very
unlikely achieve the best systemic performance. For example, replacing tree-like
supply systems by a circular economy could potentially improve the quality of living
for everyone while making our economy more sustainable.
96 How to Make Democracy Work in the Digital Age, Huffington Post (August 4, 2016) http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-to-make-democracy-work-in-the-digital-age_us_57a2f488e
4b0456cb7e17e0f, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305571691.
97 The Climate City Cup, http://climatecitycup.org, Dirk Helbing, Introducing Climate City Cup
(July 22, 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4OQ1mDEA4.
98 Page [27].
99 Woolley et al. [28].
100 Helbing and Vicsek [29], Helbing [30].
14 Summary: What’s Wrong with AI?
society to drop any of these values. Maybe there are even more values to consider.
For example, I have been thinking about possible ways to upgrade democracy, by
unleashing collective intelligence and constructive collective action, particularly on
a local level.
96 New formats such as City Olympics or a Climate City Cup
97 could
establish a new paradigm of innovation and change in a way that can engage all
stakeholders in a bottom-up way, including civil society. In fact, networks of cities
and the regions around them could become a third pillar of transformation besides
nations and global corporations.
14.3.7 Fairness
I want to end this contribution with a discussion of the power of fairness. People
have often asked: Is it good that everyone has one vote? Shouldn’t we have a system
in which smart people have more weight? Shouldn’t we replace the democratic
“one man one vote” principle by a “one dollar one vote” system? (Btw, today we
probably have the latter, because of voter manipulation by “big nudging”.) Experimental evidence about the “wisdom of crowds” surprisingly suggests that, giving
people different weights, whatever the criteria are, does not improve results.
98 On the
contrary, studies in collective intelligence show that largely unequal influence on a
debate will reduce social intelligence.
99 Diversity of information sources, opinions,
and solution approaches is what makes collective intelligence work.
In conclusion, it seems a fair system based on the principle of equality is the best.
In fact, it can be mathematically shown for many complex model systems that they
will evolve towards an optimal state if and only if interactions are symmetrical.
100
If symmetry is broken, all sorts of things can happen. However, one can surely
say that a hierarchical system or one controlled by utilitarian principles will very
unlikely achieve the best systemic performance. For example, replacing tree-like
supply systems by a circular economy could potentially improve the quality of living
for everyone while making our economy more sustainable.
96 How to Make Democracy Work in the Digital Age, Huffington Post (August 4, 2016) http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-to-make-democracy-work-in-the-digital-age_us_57a2f488e
4b0456cb7e17e0f, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305571691.
97 The Climate City Cup, http://climatecitycup.org, Dirk Helbing, Introducing Climate City Cup
(July 22, 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX4OQ1mDEA4.
98 Page [27].
99 Woolley et al. [28].
100 Helbing and Vicsek [29], Helbing [30].