h a l f b a k e r y
Sugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
The large number of values and experiences that enter deliberations can make decision-making difficult. Because logic-based knowledge databases can be used to answer propositions, I propose that decision makers hire a few artificial intelligence computer specialists to maintain such a logic engine to
guide policy arguments. The logic engine would have no authority to make decisions; instead, it is a tool for revealing inconsistencies and entailment of the inputs.
Given well-defined circumstances, it may be capable of recommending actions. Each recommendation would contain a list of the necessary inputs so that the result could be debated by contesting each input. This might make complicated arguments easier to follow and dispute, like a geometric proof. The computer would serve to handle the prohibitively large quantity of assumptions, values, and experiences.
At best, the logic engine adviser would promote logical argument by making it simpler to follow.
To build the ethical appeal of the machine, one brave scientist would be secretly sealed inside and asked to add personality to the machine's responses. To outsiders the machine should thus appear sentient and perhaps more trustworthy.
A major difficulty is that the machine goes out of service when the midget scientist slips out the hatch in the back to go to the bathroom.
[normzone, Dec 09 2009]
||i like it...the world's too complicated.
||however, this is awfully close to magic and WIBNI: Planetary AIs from Asimov, Neal Asher, or many other sci-fi novelists' books.
||I don't get it, but I am sure you know what you're doing. +
||Everything said by important politicians is analysed by their critics and its poor logic exposed. The problem is, they just ignore it and push their dodgy policies anyway.