Comment by grive | Hacker News Reader

Comment by grive | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You assume the central planner to be the same as a single unit (as in, of the same kind, the same species).

Who is to say that the central planner must be the ontological equal of a single unit? Why not a more complex system?

You could have for example a quorum of single-unit who will need to reach a consensus concerning their diverging self-beneficial impetus. You can also imagine, if you represent the interest of each single unit as a vector in some kind of space, that the quorum must navigate a product of those vectors.

You can imagine an AI then, a machine exploring that vector space that could learn to balance the wants and needs of its single units.

Et cætera. I don't know exactly why you comment was not well received, I am not able myself to downvote comments here and I did not do that, but my own opinion about yours was that it was basing itself on some assumptions that were biased by some real-world considerations that were irrelevant for the concept presented.

Thank you for your reply.

"Who is to say that the central planner must be the ontological equal of a single unit"

My impression is that's what most people here are discussing.

I can see a definition of an anarchy in your quorum example, can't you? But you say we could have AI which will find a balance. Interesting concept. Does it imply obeying AI <=> obeying the law?

Well, the quorum could be organized in any matter of way. Expected a consensus for a decision would be akin to anarchy indeed, however there could always be some kind of recursive hierarchy, with another sub-committee of higher authority that would make other units diverge. (Parties within an assembly, with deputies having to follow their party lines). This quorum could also be tied to following the interest of the masses outside or lose substantial advantages, thus tying their own selfishness to the common good.

It could be anarchy. It could be anything else.

The AI could simply do whatever its specialization is. It could be trying to direct the single-units or to disorganize them and try to keep some level of entropy. Maybe its own benefit would be a generalized state of chaos. Whatever.

The system itself could be considered the legal framework. The relationship between any supervisor and its units could be the metaphor for any subservient relationship in the real world, going from managed teams to parenting to politics to social dynamics between friends. It does not mean anything as long as the specifics of the system itself are not defined to permit the dynamics to be correctly mapped on some real-world dynamics.

Obeying the law? Are you obeying the law of gravity? Is it from your own will that you agree to stay on the ground?

Well yes, I am obeying the law of gravity :D Is your point, that AI could replace human will?

No, sorry it was somewhat tongue in cheek. It's just that within the simulation, the way a single unit obeys a central planner (not at all, partially, entirely) is defined by the rules of the simulation, so the rules of the world.

So asking if that rule, that authority of the AI over the units is similar to human law, is I think a bit beside the point. It's more akin to the law of physics. It's simply the fabric of that reality.

Of course, you could then create a simulation that would try to recreate the same kind of domination as within a human society, but that would be only one kind of simulation, one kind of system, with specific parameters. It would not give much about the very essence of the system itself, only of it within constraints.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com