SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Tim O'Reilly has advocated for the idea of algorithmic regulation - reducing the role of people and replacing them with automated systems in order to make goverment policy less biased and more efficient. But the idea has been criticized as utopianism, where actual implementations are likely to make government more opaque and even less responsive to the citizens who have the least say in the operation of society.
Now, as part of New America's annual conference What Drives Innovation Around the Country? Virginia Eubanks has written an essay examining such automation in the cases of pre-crime and welfare fraud. Is it possible to automate away human judgment from the inherently human task of governance and still achieve humane results? Or is inefficiency and waste an unavoidable part of the process?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @10:49AM
O'Reilly has a point, but only up to a point. For lack of a better word, "debugging" government is almost impossible. There are far too many personalities involved, not to mention personal, political & corporate interests. Removing the "professional politicians" and the greed & corruption would help address the near-zero production that results from government acting in what they claim to be the citizens' best interests.
Debugging the "algorithmic regulation" would be even harder. It would be controlled by only a few (or possibly even one) corporation (another government contract handed out to a friend, donor or lobbyist). The current regulation and oversight, as poorly implemented & managed as it is, is far more transparent than anything a tech company would ever throw together. Not to mention any political bias the company holds could influence the algorithm, and the fact that the jobs to create the algorithm would probably be outsourced or handed to a H-1B friendly company.
Don't get me wrong, I'd trust a rabid robot making decisions using a random number generator (or even an old pair of dice) more than I trust anyone in politics. I just don't trust closed source software contracted by, and acting on behalf of, those same politicians. 99% of them don't know what software really does so they are among the least qualified to make these types of decisions (not to mention they are greedy, corrupt and continue to be for sale).