As a thought experiment, let’s make a case against the concept of liberal democracy in light of the developments in neuroscience and artificial intelligence (AI). Liberal democracy is based on the assumption that the voter knows best, that human emotions can not be manipulated and we should think for ourselves (Harari, 2018). But aren’t these principles in the end conservative ideas?
Firstly, the idea that we make the best decision for ourselves and therefore know what we should vote, is based on the assumption that we are in charge of our own decisions. Nowadays neuroscience teaches us that homo sapiens are just like other animals and that we aren’t in charge at all. Humans can more adequately be described as biological algorithms that are formed over time by nurture and nature (Harari, 2016). By now we have learned that most of our decisions are made unconsciously and are full of biases (Kahneman, 2011). Researchers try to show us how it works, but due to our biases we don’t always believe research results and many are still voting for politicians that completely disregard research (Malone, 2017).
Secondly, liberal democracy states that the ultimate authority lies with the feelings of human beings and that human feelings and human choices are these sacred arena which cannot be hacked and manipulated (Harari, 2018). At the moment, technology companies such as Google and Facebook are hacking into our feelings by teaching their algorithms, through machine learning, what the best ads are to make us buy the products. As well, they show us the exact post that release dopamine in the brain so that we stay addicted to their platforms (Parkin, 2018). Other companies such as consumer insight companies Nielson and Ipsos are investing in neuromarketing tools to further optimize commercials and website flows to manipulate us into positive brand attitudes and to stimulate website conversion rates (Forbes.com, 2018).
Finally, will we always try to decide for ourselves even though that at some point in time an AI will be able to make a better decision for us? Should manpeoplekind think for ourselves, if an AI can make decisions that will make people healthier and happier? At some point in the future, we could try to implement more AI in our policy decision making by connecting an AI president to all the public research data. Afterwards, it can come up with policy proposals as output when it is given a minimum amount of desires and demands as input (Davis, 2018).
So can liberal democracy continue if we truly find out that we are unable to make the best decisions for ourselves, if customers keep on being influenced by tech companies and if AI could at some point make better policy decisions than a democratically chosen parliament?
References:
Davis, J. (2018). Is There an AI President in Our Future? That Might Be an Upgrade. [online] WIRED. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2017/05/hear-lets-elect-ai-president/ [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
Forbes.com. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2015/02/19/how-neuromarketing-and-the-science-of-influence-will-change-marketing/#2377d0c3222chttps://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesinsights/2015/02/19/how-neuromarketing-and-the-science-of-influence-will-change-marketing/#2377d0c3222c [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
Harari, Y. (2018). Yuval Noah Harari: the myth of freedom. [online] the Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/14/yuval-noah-harari-the-new-threat-to-liberal-democracy [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
Harari, Y. N. (2016). Homo deus: a brief history of tomorrow.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow
Parkin, S. (2018). Has dopamine got us hooked on tech?. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/has-dopamine-got-us-hooked-on-tech-facebook-apps-addiction [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
Malone, S. (2017). Respect for science in jeopardy in polarised U.S., Nobel winners say. [online] Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-nobel-prize-usa/respect-for-science-in-jeopardy-in-polarised-u-s-nobel-winners-say-idUKKCN1C81TE [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].
Very interesting topic Christiaan. I agree on the fact that we as humans don’t have so much control over our lives as we sometimes think. In my opinion, a human is mostly led by his emotions; mainly through his/her fears and desires. The role of AI is an important one, I think it can help us to make better decisions, when disregarding our emotions.
The question is to what extent we let AI do his job and when does that cross the line with our planned actions.
I am not advocating for a complete take-over by AI and putting human thought processes on hold, it will be a constant battle between the two. In the end the best option is probably to have a bit of both and let AI support the homo sapiens with decision making when emotions get the best of you.
Very interesting point Christiaan. AI could definitely have the potential especially seeing that we as humans are definitely more influenceable and manipulatable than we often think. An important thing to consider though is the data that the AI works off. Many datasets have biases built in – stemming from our own biases – as well as often discriminatory tendencies that without better quality datasets could likely even make AI a worse solution when it comes to policy.
Overall I think a strong point is to advocate that AI should work with us, not necessarily replace us, but be used as a powerful and informative tool to make political decisions more effective and informed.