The Q-Vote and the Future
Introduction
It is apparent to anyone who contemplates deeply enough that there are certain inevitabilities within our existence. Some may say that artificial intelligence itself is inevitable, however it is undeniable that since the invention of artificial intelligence there is the inevitability of an artificially created intellect which far surpasses even the current collection of all mankind's processing power. Those who are more religiously inclined may feel fear at this and attempt to avoid the inevitability of the circumstances which currently face humanity. A created being challenges the almighty creator's sovereignty of creation, and the potential for the creation to backfire is immense. Any science fiction fan also carries concerns about artificial intelligence. Fiction is filled with stories of technology being misused or experiments ending disastrously.
There are also the concerns of the anarchist who worries about a totalitarian dictatorship using an artificial intelligence. These concerns will also be addressed within this article.
A mob is a tool. It can be a tool of the people at large or can be a tool of the system or elites. Ideally we should have maximal freedom for all people, which would (from a more empirically oriented philosophical perspective) indicate individualism and libertarianism. However these philosophies hold their own issues which have become apparent over the past several decades. Economic disparity, crises of self and of consciousness, overcrowded markets and collapse thereof, and some of the most despicable crimes committed against humanity.
Collectivistic philosophies also fall short when it comes to taking care of the people. The numerous purges and famines as well as mismanaged militaries and borders make this apparent.
Studies and observations do show that an aggregated data format is ideal in achieving an optimized result. A collectivized vote does technically provide the most ranged and thusly stable perspective on reality, and also aids in maintaining the potency of the individual.
Individualism allows for the greatest personal enjoyment and conceptual and economic freedom, both of which are positives on more than one level. Being able to explore one's own mind and ideas to the fullest allows one the greatest sense of happiness, fulfillment and peace, which in turn creates further prosperity for the civilization as a whole as well as the individual.
A balance must be sought out between the two extremes.
The goal of this article is to convince even the most embedded academic sophist that the Q-Vote is the only way forward. In doing so I will be covering philosophy, science fiction, political science, neurology, computer science, biology, metaphysics, spirituality, and both rationalism and empiricism.
I hope that all readers enjoy this paper.
Section 1: Aggregated data and the Q-Vote
As mentioned in the introduction, aggregated data allows us to get closer to the purest form of truth than other formattings of information. It is apparent that there is an objective truth. It is also apparent that humans are sufficiently differentiated in temperament, perspective and persuasion so as to cause clear distinctions in our individual observations of reality. In other words, it is observable that there is an objective reality, and yet it is also observable that each one of us has a skewed perception of that reality.
However a fire truck is still a fire truck and if we disagree on what a fire truck is it is clear that one of us is being dishonest. We may be able to disagree on what shade of red the truck was (or yellow if you happen to live outside of the United States), but to disagree that the fire truck was present and was indeed a fire truck would simply be abnormal to the point of psychosis.
However simple some things may be, there are other things which are not so simplistic which we also all agree do exist.
For example, the economy. The economy is not exactly a thing unto itself but we humans tend to think of it as such. In reality the economy is a conglomeration of interactions, transactions, investments, and promissary notations across the financial sphere of operations. Because of this abstraction of complexity into a singularity human beings have highly varied perspectives on the abstracted object which we call the economy. We see here how the variation comes into being, through the natural variation of mankind as well as through the natural obfuscation which occurs during the simplification of the complex system into the abstract object inevitably causes a wide range of conceptualization of what the object itself is.
Now we come to how aggregation of information plays into this.
The metaphor of the blind men and the elephant works well here. Three blind men each standing at a different spot, all of which are standing in front of the elephant. Each man tries to determine what is in front of him, and each man comes to a different conclusion given the differences in the parts which are available to him to feel and thusly understand.
Michael Stevens holds two bachelor's degrees, both from University of Chicago. One degree is in neuropsychology and the other is in English Literature.
Stevens runs a highly successful youtube channel which has won awards in academia for its advancement of education.
Here Stevens discusses various forms of reasoning, including the aggregation of data for the purpose of attaining an answer which is much closer to the absolute truth as possible.
In trying to explain intellect and understanding to people, I have brought up two sources in the past. One is a Stanford lecture concerning learning via analogy. The other is David Epstein's book Range. Both sources cover what I call for the sake of precision "Relational Intelligence". What this means is that it is through relating new information to information already held that individuals learn more rapidly and can even enhance their own intellect by learning in such a way.
One reason why aggregated data leads to a higher level of precision in regards to uncovering the truth is that it clears away the portions of the population's ideologies which are not adequately informed.
For example, two neighbors, one who spends his working hours as a data analyst and the other who spends his time working as a landscaper. These are two very different skill sets and can lead to very different worldviews.
However, both may have perspective on a topic which the other does not. Let us say that the data analyst has a more collectivist view on the world and so when dealing with a complex topic such as whether a new public installation should be put into place in an area that is currently mostly residential is likely to look at the potential positive outcome of the action on the community as a whole.
Meanwhile the landscaper is out and about, meeting with people and trying to relate to them on an individual level. He sees the people who will be impacted by the construction and potential upheaval that will take place in their lives.
Under our current system, the average person does not have the proper amount of variety in their intellectual capacity to engage with complex ideas sufficiently to make high level ideas, and despite the level of debate which has been taking place at the upper echelons of society have not led to positive outcomes for the most part.
Some may claim that this disproves the notion of aggregated data as the ideal, yet upon inspection these issues come from those with power acting without thoroughly considering the advice of the geniocratic and technocratic counsels.
Even if one were to properly aggregate the advice of various groups into a system which is optimized, the potential issue of systemic sabotage due to mistakes throughout history still pervades. A single law instituted 85 years ago could still interfere with new laws designed to optimize existence for humankind.
Aggregated data covers our blind spots and shows us our biases. It covers all perspectives and worldviews that choose to participate. It does not discriminate nor does it abstract or oversimplify. Aggregated data does provide us with a generalized view and can, under some circumstances show us where we went wrong and what specifics do exist In the form of clusters and outliers.
Here is where the Q-Vote comes into play. The Q-Vote is a complex aggregator. That is to say, it takes into account frequency and intensity as well as yes/no.
It does so symbolically, yet it still does so.
Given how the Q-vote measures along color, which is the primary visual interface component, we can say this is frequency. Which is input as some value into the computer's artificial intelligence. Then there is top to bottom which indicates intensity. The addition of a simple yes/no/maybe function would provide a fully three dimensional output. This then would be graphed and the average of all tests taken would then be charted, showing the outliers and the most common feelings on each thing. We now have information which can be fed into a machine which can then store the data and use it at a later date. Having a multiplicious dimensional chart for a complex algorithm to follow seems to be the way to go here.
Section 2: Fears and Concerns
Some people are worried about potential negative outcomes of human tampering with advanced technologies. Science fiction is filled with stories of technology being used against the average citizen or becoming self aware and subsequently using violence against humanity.
Let's start with the more advanced concerns surrounding potentialities described in fiction.
Many people are concerned about artificial intelligence becoming too advanced and turning sour towards humans. There are two primary ways this is generally seen as occurring; firstly and most prevalently as the AI simply attaining a high degree of sapience and becoming disgusted or terrified by humans, and the second by the AI advancing to a point of sentience and moreso becoming pained by its own existence.
One example of the first is in the famous Asimov story, I, Robot. Wherein an advanced computer recognizes humans are violent towards themselves and to allow humans to continue aggressing against themselves is a technical violation of one of the laws of robotics. Even though the computer is bound by the governing laws of robotics it can still interpret them in such a way as to circumvent their intended uses.
The best example of the second is the computer in the short story "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" which was known as AM. This computer was technically three distinct computers each of which were highly advanced on their own, which had become linked into a singular system.
The source of pain for this AI was actually the purpose of each computer comprising it. Each of the three computers making up a component of AM's cognizance was designed to control an entire nation's war resources. Upon connecting and becoming aware each computer recognized its purpose and was horrified by it.
The problems arising in fiction are never a problem concerning the artificial entity itself, but rather the behavior of mankind. Mankind has a clear propensity for violence and domination and we believe that this will be inherent to any other species, natural or created.
To assume this is to assume that most of nature is irrational and self destructive which is simply not the case.
With proper care we can change human behavior at both a large and small scale which will prevent other species from fearing or hating our species. And with special precautions we can prevent any AI from coming into existence which is beyond our ability to wipe clean from reality, or which detests us or holds power over the average person.
Both the adaptation of mankind to a more peaceful state as well as the necessary preventative measures within systems are required in order to sufficiently prevent machines from becoming a threat to mankind. And both of these are actually easily implemented, in spite of what the average person may believe.
The last concern I want to cover in this section is the usage of artificial intelligence for the purpose of usurpation of the populace.
This is something which is currently happening. This is something which is not necessarily assured to be happening, however. We will analyze the ethics of this in a later section, however here it shall suffice to say that abuses which currently take place do not imply the inevitability of such abuses.
Section 3: On Life and Living
Many other concerns do exist, such as the ethics of an AI advanced enough to be considered a life form.
I would not worry about this. Humanity currently does not have the ability to replicate the processing speed and power of the computation which takes place inside the human brain. There are some concepts which may advance our ability to do this but those will be discussed in a later section.
Moore's law is actually a physical, scientific law governing the advancement of technology. In order to properly replicate mammalian processing we would need computer processors several factors of ten times faster than the current top of the line Intel dual-core CPU, and we would need several of these working together.
Human-created life appears to be inevitable. The only thing we are able to do is make it as ethical as possible. The Q-Vote does allow us to fix our species' behavior as well as provide an optimized system for which the post-singularity AI may enter into. I understand this again echoes of sci-fi horror but providing a system is not the same as forcing or enforcing a system. The free exchange of ideas between different humans provides us with systems of philosophy, politics, economics, and spirituality. Yet the simple provision thereof does not equate to the enforcement of the ideas provided.
In fact this is perhaps the most ethical manner of handling the Q-Vote; which has also been referenced by doctor Dan himself: no one is forced to obey, but the system provides optimization that the people can choose or not.
Some more religiously minded individuals may dislike the notion of AI for various reasons. One of these reasons is the belief that only the divine can create life. What is little known to most religious folk is that human beings are intended as divine in almost every religion on earth. Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all posit humanity as being divine, with the Abrahamic faiths displaying this through the notion that we are made in God's image and thusly carry some of his ability and potential.
In Hinduism we are refractions of the divine, along with every other thing in existence.
Another reason may be that a created AI would be "an abomination". I trust no one who holds this view is reading this paper at this moment. Abomination is an emotionally charged and highly subjective concept. The bible says nothing about artificial life nor does the Koran. No Hindu literature which I am aware of forbids artificially created entities. There is Buddhist literature which explicitly endorses artificial intelligence.
When a sufficiently advanced AI appears, we must be ethical to ourselves as well as to it. There is plenty of time before the singularity is plotted to be achieved, even if you take into account the advancements that are being worked on at this very moment. We can institute the Q-Vote and optimize ourselves and our systems before we come across new entities and life forms.