Very good points.
Yes, I was imagining that this would enable a direct democracy style system, with less dependence on elected representatives and less bundling of issues.
I was also imagining that it could be tested to see what the theoretical outcomes would have been. And tried out on small politically polarized groups.
The difficulty of auditing is a tricky one. But since people will have control over their own agent, they can instruct their agent to be more blunt and less strategic if they want.
I think separating the how from the what is tricky. I think futarchy is one of the few proposals I’ve heard to potentially help with this. I think having a congress of AI agents all based on the same LLM, differing only in the complex prompt they have been given, at least reduces the problem of intelligence differentials. I imagine the prompt is generated by an automated process of the user answering a long series of questions about their values. Then users can opt to add additional specifications such as the directive to be blunt for easier auditing. But only via a process of dialogue with the agent and automatic summarization of the dialogue, so that it would be harder to do weird prompt engineering stuff.
I do think that even once you’ve gotten past the problem of how to focus on the what, you will find at least some remaining disagreements. Different fundamental values between different people.
Very good points. Yes, I was imagining that this would enable a direct democracy style system, with less dependence on elected representatives and less bundling of issues. I was also imagining that it could be tested to see what the theoretical outcomes would have been. And tried out on small politically polarized groups.
The difficulty of auditing is a tricky one. But since people will have control over their own agent, they can instruct their agent to be more blunt and less strategic if they want.
I think separating the how from the what is tricky. I think futarchy is one of the few proposals I’ve heard to potentially help with this. I think having a congress of AI agents all based on the same LLM, differing only in the complex prompt they have been given, at least reduces the problem of intelligence differentials. I imagine the prompt is generated by an automated process of the user answering a long series of questions about their values. Then users can opt to add additional specifications such as the directive to be blunt for easier auditing. But only via a process of dialogue with the agent and automatic summarization of the dialogue, so that it would be harder to do weird prompt engineering stuff.
I do think that even once you’ve gotten past the problem of how to focus on the what, you will find at least some remaining disagreements. Different fundamental values between different people.