The idea itself is rather beautiful, I used to believe it was the only way things should be, but the more I think about it and its presentation here, the more I feel uncomfortable about it.
The contents of the article are fairly heavy on the technical side of things, but seem to hand-wave the human aspect of the whole operation, or tend to mostly point out human flaws and rarely qualities. I'm not sure whether it's cynicism or me reading too much into it, but it bothers me a little.
Should this idea (and others alike) ever be implemented, I personally believe they should only ever be decision-support systems that members of society (humans and possibly AIs) would ultimately decide upon. Such a system would be designed for humans first-and-for-all ; I think consistently making it decide for humans would likely remove the relative aspect of morality over time, leaving all your decisions to a "greater entity" and all that entails.
I did enjoy the article, if only as a very interesting thought exercise, but I sincerely hope not too many people take it to heart.
The contents of the article are fairly heavy on the technical side of things, but seem to hand-wave the human aspect of the whole operation, or tend to mostly point out human flaws and rarely qualities. I'm not sure whether it's cynicism or me reading too much into it, but it bothers me a little.
Should this idea (and others alike) ever be implemented, I personally believe they should only ever be decision-support systems that members of society (humans and possibly AIs) would ultimately decide upon. Such a system would be designed for humans first-and-for-all ; I think consistently making it decide for humans would likely remove the relative aspect of morality over time, leaving all your decisions to a "greater entity" and all that entails.
I did enjoy the article, if only as a very interesting thought exercise, but I sincerely hope not too many people take it to heart.