SimPolitics: America’s quest to solve politics with computers | Hacker News Reader

SimPolitics: America’s quest to solve politics with computers

mitpress.mit.edu

114 pointsmckelveyf45 comments

https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/6166/SimPoliticsAm...

Open access link

https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/6166/SimPoliticsAm...

Thank you! Hope you find it interesting!

is this your book? thanks for sharing! This isn't at all my domain of knowledge but I have a little unexpected free time on my hands and am excite to learn something new. Your book Internet Daemons looks interesting too

Yeah, it's my book and happy to answer any questions too. Internet Daemons is open access too: https://www.internetdaemons.com/

I'm Fenwick dot McKelvey at Concordia dot ca if you have questions.

Thank you for this, I'm going to give it a read.

I am unfortunately very bearish on politics in general. All politicians think short term, look after themselves, their families, their friends, and their interests first; Facts, and working simulations just get in the way. (I am still looking for a politician that is an exception to this rule) Human nature is unfortunately real, and the only way I can see to "solve politics" is to remove human's entirely, but that comes with a whole new set of issues and is another book I guess.

I think a better way to run a democracy might be to have our leaders chosen at random. Sounds like a joke, but I’m serious:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Certainly I think it’s something worth actually trying in the modern age. We’ve had quite a long run now of the representative democracy, I think we should all be open to talking about and trialing these “okay so what’s next?” Options. Before crisis or collapse makes the decision for us.

There is such an enduring link between democracy, elections and math. What I interesting was the focus on trying to model politics correctly rather than "better" with computers. I dug up some good games and programs from the early days that I have to put online sometime.

This is how the criminal courts operate (juries).

Theres a big problem, which has been described by many philosophers and political theorists (from socrates to Machiavelli) which is that politicians are first and foremost self-serving.

Most political work is not done for the population as a whole but for the own continuing of the political class and personal enrichment. Yes, sometimes these incentives align with the interests of the constituents. But if politics is about compromise and you have two groups with opposing views whose only common ground is "we are all politicians here" its most likely that a lot of the agreements are going to benefit the political class.

There's people arguing for sortition and sortition (at least as citizens assemblies, the way the OECD describes) tries to solve this problem. As people go into an assembly and don't have other incentives than to defend their own positions with regards to a certain topic of discussions. Its not a permanent body and that gets rid of some of the perverse incentives of politicians.

"solving politics" is nonsensical beyond winning elections.

Most political issues don't have a "solution", they have various trade offs that are contingent.

I get the bearish case but it is easy to forget how much difference good vs bad politics can have and that politics isn't primarily a game of facts. It is an optimization problem under many unknowns and its history is littered with academic theories debunked and hard won compromises.

I mean it's debatable that it's an optimization problem but it's been tried. One thread in the book is the reaction the Limits of Growth. That model extrapolated trends, very abstractly, to predict the future. A successor, the Latin American World Model or the Bariloche Model, tried to imagine an ideal world and optimize for it. Very different approaches and a good question to ask when you hear someone talking about computer simulations.

People sure tried. But really the book traces how that happened. I think it became easier to imagine politics working like a computer than with people, like how computer reasoning and rational choice became an ideal to measure other political thought.

You should read Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics. This was a known problem 2,400 years ago.

https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html

https://www.sciencetheearth.com/uploads/2/4/6/5/24658156/pla...

I think it's less that politicians think short term, and more that voters think short term. Politicians are just responding to the incentives created by willfully ignorant voters.

Exactly right, and same for society in general. There’s a degree to which humans work okay in their primitive state (hunter-gatherers, small homogenous communities), but once scaling and technology enters the picture we’re 100% toast without a fundamental recalibration towards genuinely caring for one another.

Not at all, people incapable of caring for others can also contribute wonderfully but they operate entirely different. It is arguably mean to expect our behavior from people who feel nothing for other people and your generosity is weakness to be exploited. They do however have great respect for that what scares them shitless which can be upgraded to unmatched respect if the scary thing helps them when they most need it. Could be a person or an organization. In the old days they have wives. lmfao

You trailed off into a "might make right" argument at the end there

The Supreme Intelligence has entered the chat... My brain has been stuck on that same thought for decades - wouldn't it be great to have a wholly objective, impartial, and independent governing mechanism to limit the influence of power hungry monkeys and their lackeys.

A fantastic low to the ground example of the fundamental problems with human politics is seen in American HOA structures and proliferation. It's utterly amazing to me how insanely corrupt a bog standard HOA can get months into it's inception simply do to base human behavior.

I'll remain bearish on this as well. "Democracy" and collective government has been our species best attempt at this and well...

Bet we’re less than 5 years from that tbh

Make no mistake, America was founded on greed. Our cries for Democracy and Liberty were only so we wouldn't have to pay the King's taxes. We wanted the western native lands that the British promised to protect with hired native americans. The notion that "All men are created equal" only applied to virtuous white men.

Also, France was eager to give hell to the British and the Colonies were a mere spat in the global theater once France entered chat.

Wow I’ve never seen someone else in the wild talk about this, it’s like a collective psychosis. Every time I hear “the founding fathers would be turning in their grave if they saw this corruption” I roll my eyes. The MO since the beginning has been propaganda and war.

You must not be American?

I’m American but I know truths that aren’t taught in white washed Christian schools.

Our founding fathers would be licking their lips

jfc are you kidding? They teach how bad America is in public schools. A People's History of the United States has sold millions of copies. This must be satire since if anything the discourse is much more about how America is fundamentally corrupt.

American public schools? Since when? All I remember is “they threw tea in the harbor because taxes were so bad” and “George Washington just wanted everyone to finally have freedom”. Yes they teach about slavery and Chinese labor, but I’m talking about the founding myth specifically.

The founding myth was not talked about at all in new york state high school. They were clear it was about western expansion, and taxes, and led by the local american aristocracy. Every single period emphasized labor, women, and minority treatment. Perhaps this was because I did AP, but this was pretty consistent even in middle school american history also. Its in my opinion that they should have focused more on the founding myths and righteousness of the cause, as that builds civil engagement more.

You didn't learn about the Delaware Indians? Ohio valley? Cherokee or Tuskarora? How they fought for the British side as they saw American settlers as wanting to take their land (which was correct). The stamp act? The tea tax of just 0.02 that Boston decided, nah, and dumped into the harbor. It started with grievances and ended with the Spanish Fleet. It changed the world, not just founding America. (I got public education in the 80s/90s so YMMV).

Now now, not everyone got a well rounded public education.

If you are still in the camp of "all politicians...", you are part of the problem.

Its a shame that midterms are going to likely swing to the Dem side, because the thing that needs to happen is for Republicans to hold power for 10+ years to run the country into the ground so people like you feel real strife and stop living in your own little fantasy world where you pretend like you are morally superior above others.

Great video on the subject of applying science to business and government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf0vb4yiZR4&t=2s

Looking forward to "modeling the economy with AI agents".

The nuance that kept me from spinning out in writing the book was the assumption that politics is weird, and not the same as the economy.

The economy is deeply weird and irrational too. In many of the same ways as politics.

Can anyone tell me if it acknowledges the dialectic?

Its got sublimes for cheap.

I didn't read the book but the problem in politics is always the silent majority.

On the internet, the 5% of haters and the 5% of the biggest fans mostly comment. 90% of the people don't, the silent majority.

How are you gonna model what those who don't give an opinion say?

Polls? Remember the USA 2016 election where Trump won?

But that's always been the case. Nixon started to use the term in 1969 just as his campaign was working with top advisor to build more interactive systems to measure and predict the elections per riding. A bit theme of the book is how to appreciate the gap between a simulation and reality, something old and new.

Title is: SimPolitics - America’s Quest to Solve Politics with Computers

Thanks! I should have put that in the post in the first place

We've updated it now, and put the open access link in the toptext. Thanks for posting this!

Thanks for correcting!

Wouldnt this be a show hn?

Not really. ShowHN’s are for interactive things and are supposed to be free and generally shouldn’t require account creation.

“Reading material” is specifically called out as being off topic!

https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html

I was tempted with Show HN, but it also seems more like demos, and this is more a link to an open access book so I thought it was more reading material.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com