Algorithm appointed board director
bbc.com
bbc.com
If factory workers and truck drivers are going to be replaced by machines why not board directors? Surely a well written algorithm can do much of what they do a lot better. For that matter, Mr. Congressman and mayor of my town.... I think there may be a more efficient and less corruptible solution to your poor leadership.
Government by algorithm. The source of which is open for public inspection and comment. It just seems this might be fairer and more efficient. And efficient is often selected for over the long run. Which is why I believe this will happen.
In practice I bet this would be less awesome than you might expect. To the extent that human boards of directors already single-mindedly optimize profit (largely indifferent to how such decisions affect humanity), it seems like an entirely inhuman optimization of profit would be even more pathological.
Algorithmic government perhaps has more promise -- if what it is optimizing is something that positively impacts the average citizen. Interestingly, I would imagine such an algorithmic government optimizing something related to the contentment or happiness of the average citizen would directly conflict with corporate profit optimization.
In the end, what you end up with might not be so different than what currently exists implemented by imperfect humans -- a battle between corporate and human interests where those two interests come into conflict.
As far as it goes... laws and constitutions are a type of algorithm, however imperfect. But.... implementation is a often a bit spotty when you have broken components with a self interest and human emotions.
Nobody ever said mob rule was the ideal form of government.
And that's why I say..... constitutions are algorithms. Or at least crude attempts at them. The idea is that the system confines and survives the administrators.
And yes, the general wishes of the populace are represented. As they should be. But when wishes serve to oppress others or create long term damage to selves or future others this is a problem. Particularly when wishes can apparently be bought and sold by those who control what we see.
This situation is where algorithm vs. individual leader is useful to society in general. And this was, I believe, the initial idea behind the US constitution, at least, and probably most others.
It's much worse when algorithms will make decisions on boards of, say, weapons companies, or health insurances, etc.
It would be like appointing a cold, amoral board member only concerned with pure profit -- probably not great for society at large, but I could be wrong of course.
Theoretically, as defined by the fiduciary responsibility of a corporation to it's shareholders, this is exactly what they would want.
The subtext of your statement is a contention that there is an inherent conflict inherent in those two goals (profitability and social benefit), which I don't think can be rigorously supported.