Your proposal is well-structured and interesting but has a fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed. Interest keyword-based filtering will primarily encourage politics-as-identity, which is actively harmful—it directs attention towards zero-sum thinking and performative identities, rather than creative problem solving. As Bryan Caplan demonstrates in The Myth of the Rational Voter, people already tend to vote to express identities and affiliations rather than to achieve better outcomes. We shouldn’t build tools that further entrench this destructive pattern.
Instead, imagine a tool that:
Has users journal daily about their life—activities, hopes, problems, and worries
Uses AI to identify where their constraints are plausibly caused by or could be alleviated by government action, especially local government
Maps them to specific opportunities for formal recourse, with guidance on process, likely outcomes, and practical assistance (like drafting letters or legal documents)
For issues requiring collective action, connects users facing similar constraints and helps coordinate through mechanisms like dominant assurance contracts where appropriate
This approach would ground political participation in the solving of one’s own problems rather than identity expression. While technically more challenging to implement than interest-based filtering, it would generate higher-quality engagement that expands our collective problem-solving capacity rather than just reallocating political power between existing interest groups.
The patterns emerging from aggregated user experiences would naturally reveal systemic issues and preventive opportunities, especially in how regulations and policies interact to shape people’s choices and planning horizons. While building reliable AI judgment about political causation is challenging, it’s better to attempt something hard that would be beneficial if feasible, than to facilitate the destructive forces of identity-based politics simply because they’re easier to implement.
Upvoted on the basis of clarity, useful / mentoring tone, and the value of the suggestions. Thank you for coming back to this.
In a first-pass read, there is not much I would add, save for mentioning that I’d expect (1)-(4) to change from what they are now were they to actually be implemented in some capacity, given the complexities (jurisdictional resources, public desire, participation, etc…).
I have the Myth of The Rational Voter on my shelf unread!
If I have any sufficiently useful or interesting ideas or comments regarding your remarks, I will add them here.
Your proposal is well-structured and interesting but has a fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed. Interest keyword-based filtering will primarily encourage politics-as-identity, which is actively harmful—it directs attention towards zero-sum thinking and performative identities, rather than creative problem solving. As Bryan Caplan demonstrates in The Myth of the Rational Voter, people already tend to vote to express identities and affiliations rather than to achieve better outcomes. We shouldn’t build tools that further entrench this destructive pattern.
Instead, imagine a tool that:
Has users journal daily about their life—activities, hopes, problems, and worries
Uses AI to identify where their constraints are plausibly caused by or could be alleviated by government action, especially local government
Maps them to specific opportunities for formal recourse, with guidance on process, likely outcomes, and practical assistance (like drafting letters or legal documents)
For issues requiring collective action, connects users facing similar constraints and helps coordinate through mechanisms like dominant assurance contracts where appropriate
This approach would ground political participation in the solving of one’s own problems rather than identity expression. While technically more challenging to implement than interest-based filtering, it would generate higher-quality engagement that expands our collective problem-solving capacity rather than just reallocating political power between existing interest groups.
The patterns emerging from aggregated user experiences would naturally reveal systemic issues and preventive opportunities, especially in how regulations and policies interact to shape people’s choices and planning horizons. While building reliable AI judgment about political causation is challenging, it’s better to attempt something hard that would be beneficial if feasible, than to facilitate the destructive forces of identity-based politics simply because they’re easier to implement.
Upvoted on the basis of clarity, useful / mentoring tone, and the value of the suggestions. Thank you for coming back to this.
In a first-pass read, there is not much I would add, save for mentioning that I’d expect (1)-(4) to change from what they are now were they to actually be implemented in some capacity, given the complexities (jurisdictional resources, public desire, participation, etc…).
I have the Myth of The Rational Voter on my shelf unread!
If I have any sufficiently useful or interesting ideas or comments regarding your remarks, I will add them here.