Will democracy survive the Big Data and artificial intelligence?

In view of the current turmoil in the media, which is destroying the little trust left to the public in power, in the media, and in the wealthy alike, it seems that the danger to democracy lurks first and foremost of the people who attract the reins and not the algorithms. Talk about algorithms and Big Data sounds academic and far removed from the trivial reality of contacts, deals, human manipulation and diversion press coverage and false news. but nevertheless, wise and honorable people sat on the ground and thought about this question. Interesting to know what solutions they offer and how you think about these solutions.

We are at a time when information about our lives has been collected and stored in huge quantities and many companies are exploring ways to make this information money. Soon our smartphones will not only be smart but also our clothes (wearable computing), our homes, the cities we live in will be smart and based on artificial intelligence and high data and a network of algorithms that can teach themselves to produce patterns and conclusions from the data The intelligence of every human being, who will shape all aspects of life. The process of automating information by algorithms will have implications for all aspects of life, including employment. Technology gurus such as Eilon Masak, the founder of Tesla, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, warn of the danger of intelligence over dominating the human race. (Paradoxically, one who warns against "intelligent" is usually the one who shares development. Along with the great promise to mankind that these technologies are embedded, there are also enormous risks that may erase the achievements that mankind has achieved so far.

One thing is certain - the way in which society and the human economy operates and organized is expected to change in a revolutionary way. After the automatization of production processes and cars without driver - the automation of human society is the next step.

Since Norbert Wiener's theory of systems (1894-1964) and the idea that it is possible to control and improve the behaviour of systems through appropriate feedbacks, the idea has evolved that it will be possible to control society and the economy - but there were no technological means to do so. Today, these measures exist. Singapore, is an example of a company dominated by information. What began as a program to protect civilians from terrorism has become a means of shaping the economy and immigration policy, the property policy, and the curriculums of the education system. In China, the Chinese search engine "Beidu" invited the army to take the Chinese brain project, where data on the citizens will be collected and given a civil ranking to determine on what terms will receive loans, work and visas to visit other countries.

The West goes this way, with price personalization, frequent checks of credit, and police and police surveillance of citizens' Internet activities. It began innocently as personalized testimonial systems. But as these systems know more about us, their recommendations are perceived by us as natural, but in fact our freedom of choice to make independent decisions is damaged and our decisions are shaped by others.

But it does not end with recommendations. There are systems that are developed to convince, in order to create compelling content, that they move from computer programming to people's programming, through nudging and alerts of compelling content. The administration wants to make sure that we are doing the right thing by pushing messages and instructions and reminders of implementation. There are many who see this as nothing but a means of effective and legitimate control of the government by the citizen.

Research shows that the attempt to control opinions through optimization is doomed to failure because of the complexity of the matter. The dynamics of the formation of opinions are filled with surprises. During 2009, the public was recommended to receive a flu vaccine in Germany, but there were a few people who developed it as a response to the vaccine for narcolepsy. Fortunately, there were many who chose not to get vaccinated.

Similarly, the insurance companies' recommendation to increase physical fitness with a smart exercise bracelet, to improve heart health, has led to an increase in the number of operations in the hip joint (from fitness, the joint is worn). In addition, there have been attempts to take control of the information of terrorist and criminal elements.

Another problem is the lack of transparency and democratic control of information. In elections, those who control the algorithms and push technologies can divert the floating votes in their favor and win the elections.

Another problem is the hegemony and monopoly of one social network or one search engine on market share. In Europe, the High Court of Justice imposed restrictions on the export of information from Europe. But the problem has not been solved.

What side effects do we expect as a result of these technologies? Reinforcing existing ideas through reverberation chambers and filtering bubbles, as a result of increased polarization, loosening of social cohesion. This has already been seen in widening the gaps in positions between Democrats and Republicans in the United States in a way that makes it very difficult to bridge them. As a result, deep changes in public attitudes can only occur slowly and cumulatively. It is possible that hostility against minorities and immigrants will be out of control and discrimination and conflicts will be allocated.

Large-scale digital manipulation can cause considerable damage. Who will take responsibility for this?, What laws could violate digital manipulation? The violation of freedom of choice is clear. If algorithms work as expected, we will become digital slaves. Our freedom is slowly eroding, because the public does not protest.

Information push technologies can blur the boundaries between information and advertising and cause subconscious effects. People need to know when it comes to information and when it comes to advertising.

Collecting massive information about people is inconsistent with legislation protecting information in Europe. the legality of personalization of pricing is questionable because pricing may be biased to internal information owners. This may violate the Equality Act and the prevention of discrimination and competition laws, since equal access to the market and price transparency can not be guaranteed. The situation is similar to a company that tries to market its products at lower prices for export, but does not allow its citizens to buy the same products cheaply. European law imposes fines in these cases.

The personalization of pricing and advertising can not be compared with algorithms for purchase through coupons or classic marketing because the latter are not specific and do not intrude on privacy and do not use our vulnerability or neutralize our ability to think critically. in the academic world it is customary to sign participants in human experiments on a form of informed consent to the implications of this. Signing users to agree to the terms of use of hundreds of pages is far from satisfactory.

However, social experiments in humans based on push technologies are performed without informing users. (Eg, an example of an attempt to control the mood of users by memorizing the flow of their torch news). Clear rules of ethics must be formulated in these matters, similar to the rules of ethics of medicine.

In addition, should we oblige citizens to obey the intelligentsia? Even if this intelligence is smarter than any of us, will it be possible to say that it is free from errors and biases and should be relied upon blindly?

The idea of giving up the thinking of the entire population and replacing it with a super intelligent computer, however absurd it may be. Because it will automatically reduce the quality and variety of solutions to problems. It is quite clear that the problems of humanity are not diminished by the flood of information, but on the contrary. Ecological problems due to global warming reduce the number of species, cyber crimes take us 3 trillion dollars a year. States and terrorist elements are preparing for cyber wars.

In a rapidly changing, networked and increasingly complex world, even super-intelligence can not make perfect decisions. The rate of increase in complexity will always be greater than the rate of increase in the volume of information and the ability to process it. In such a situation, a local decision-making system may be more simple and less complex. You do not need a global traffic system to effectively manage traffic within a city.

Algorithms that dictate action in response to stimuli, without the activation of independent thought, may impair the ability of the wisdom of the masses to find ground-breaking solutions and damage creative thinking. According to Sorovitsky, the wisdom of the masses has an advantage when its participants maintain independent thinking.

For this reason personalization that dominates society from top to bottom under a veil of paternalism is nothing more than a totalitarian regime covered with roses.

An improved digital Society is possible

However, an improved digital society in the West is possible because the West has a long tradition of pluralism and equality, and the more appropriate balance between government, business and citizens should be found in a way that not only creates opportunities for participation but also preserves diversity. This will require creating a networked ecosystem of products, services, information and innovation. Since it is very difficult to determine in advance which are priority goals? Should we prefer the gross national product per capita or sustainability? Power or peace? Happiness or life expectancy? What is better we can know in hindsight but not in advance. Therefore, a pluralistic society that sets itself diverse goals may be less damaged than the vicissitudes of changes.

The model of a society dominated from top to bottom by algorithms based on lessons learned in the past fits into lower complex levels of systems. Complex decision systems must be based on the present on the aid of the wisdom of the masses. this means that civic science, mass wisdom, mass mobilization, and mass-dialogue platforms are vital to the creation of knowledge, ideas, and resources. Mass wisdom systems must rely on heterogeneity and independence, and this is against platforms trying to create trends.

In sum, we can say that we are at a crossroads where artificial intelligence, Big Data, cybernetics and behavioural economics shape our society, for better or for worse. Therefore, if these systems do not act in accordance with our core values, this may cause significant damage to the company. If they are activated only from top to bottom, they will eventually control what we think and how we think and lead to a society with totalitarian lines.

In order for us all to benefit from the digital revolution, we should follow the following rules:

1. Distribute the functioning of information systems

2. Support information systems that enable self-determination and participation

3. Improve transparency to allow more trust

4. Reduce the distortion and contamination of information

5. Allow filters (information filters) to be controlled by the user

7. Improve options for joint action and collaboration

8. Create digital assistants and coordination tools

9. Support the wisdom of the masses

10. Encourage responsible civic behavior in the digital world through education for digital media literacy and education.

#big_data #democracy #security #human #society #change #fear #future #privacy #digital #identity #deeplearning #AI #artificialintelligence