
Watson for President - derEitel
http://watson2016.com
======
clort
Having an AI as the president would make it clear to all that there is an
invisible group of people behind the president, pushing them to act and say
things that they want. I agree that even now Watson could probably make
decisions better based on actual facts but if Watson says something that is
unpalatable to its owners then they can reboot it with a different set of
facts. IIRC they did that after they fed it the urban dictionary and it
started swearing too much[1]

At least with a human president, there is the chance that they will grow up
and shrug off the orders they are given. The power actually lies with the
person that was elected, not the invisible people who paid to get them the
job.

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/ibms-w...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/ibms-
watson-memorized-the-entire-urban-dictionary-then-his-overlords-had-to-delete-
it/267047/)

~~~
mbrock
The site's creators perhaps acknowledge this in a way, by listing a number of
bullet points that they expect Watson to advise on and presumably agree with:
single-payer health care, recreational drug legalization, and so on.

But how do they know Watson would find the expected value of these things
positive? Maybe Watson would be a republican. And this all points down a huge
rabbit hole of ethical and political philosophy and stuff.

Like, should Watson take into consideration his likelihood of being elected?
In that case, much of his neural network should be dedicated to predicting
voter outcome. And that seems pretty obviously problematic.

~~~
kuschku
> Maybe Watson would be a republican

That’s very unlikely.

Any logical system based on the concept that human life is worth existing on
its own (no matter what the person has contributed to society) automatically
ends up with the necessary conclusion that things like subsidized healthcare
are mandatory.

Obviously, one could give the program the basic assumption that human life is
not worth anything, and it should instead focus purely on profit, and it might
end up with a more republican ideology.

But giving an AI with access to nuclear weapons the assumption that human life
isn’t the most important factor is... a bad idea.

~~~
ajmurmann
Agreeing on moral axioms also might be non-trivial. I for example do not agree
with the one you list above, but instead go withz Peter Singer on preventing
suffering and not protecting life per se. So abortions for example and even
euthanasia of severely sick people including newborns are fair game. Also
leads to the question if animal suffering should count and if so, how much? I
think trying to take our moral debates down to principals like this might be a
super valuable exercise for society though. Regardless if we program Watson to
be president or not.

Edit: of course this in practice would devolve to 50+% of the country in
essence saying "Whatever I think the bible says should be our acxiom".
Completely ruining the discussion.

~~~
kuschku
(I personally also subscribe to the "preventing suffering" axiom, but wanted
to show a better contrast)

But then the AI may decide life is suffering, and end suffering by ending
life...

Asimov’s laws of robots end up with the previously mentioned axiom, though.

~~~
ajmurmann
That's a very interesting point! Watson is I essence a robot, so Asimov's laws
should be a good starting point. But are they also a good starting point for
the president? Why should laws be different for robots than for people? My
head is spinning...

~~~
krapp
>Asimov's laws should be a good starting point

No they really shouldn't. Asimov's Laws of Robotics were a plot device
intended to be subverted by the robots in his stories, they were never meant
to be taken seriously.

------
mudil
What humanity needs is to put politics (and political science, for that
matter) on scientific foundation.

No other area of human activity is so unscientific and so replete with
falsehoods and lies as politics. We don't tolerate physicists or doctors
lying, but lying in politics is a norm. Add to this a mix of dogmas,
ideologies (often based on backward religious ideas), wishful thinking, and
yes, men's testosterone power plays, and you have a recipe for non-progress,
wars, subjugations, geopolitical games, etc etc etc. Even ideas that look like
a noble cause often backfire and result in death and destruction.

Scientifically-based politics should be a norm in the 21th century.

~~~
vuldin
While we're at it, let's go ahead and put religion on top of a solid
scientific foundation! I mean politics and religion are so similar, if we
figure one out then we're bound to be able to apply what we've learned from
the process to the other.

~~~
andrepd
I don't understand. Isn't religion by definition inaccessible to scientific
analysis?

~~~
chongli
The point is that rhetoric (the basis for politics) is inaccessible to
empirical analysis too.

~~~
andrepd
But the policies that politics is concerned about (economy, welfare, etc)
_are_ accessible to scientific analysis.

~~~
chongli
Right, and tons of that scientific analysis goes on. It just doesn't hold much
sway over some rather substantial portions of the electorate.

------
karmacondon
My favorite quote about Watson is "If Watson is so smart, how come it can't
figure out how to stop three years of declining sales numbers at IBM?"

More than anything, this ad makes me think of how long of a way we have to go
before this type of AI will be useful to humans, much less able to run a
country. Why doesn't President Obama consult Watson before making decisions?
Because every decision would require a massive data collection and processing
project, training and tuning of delicate models and rigorous testing. And the
net result would be what? Processing of factual information that any human
could get by reading a brief prepared by an aide?

We're worried about AI representing an existential threat or creating wide
spread unemployment, but right now the best and brightest computer in the
world can't provide any more practical political value than Monica Lewinsky.
This is a good ad campaign, timely and provocative. But it also highlights how
the path ahead is as long and arduous as a trip to Mordor. glhf, IBM!

~~~
mattmcknight
While Watson might not be making the decisions, a very difficult problem since
even the objectives the decision would be optimizing for are unclear, this is
not to say the brief prepared by the aide was created without the help of
Watson[1].

[1]
[http://www.ibm.com/connect/federal/us/en/technology_solution...](http://www.ibm.com/connect/federal/us/en/technology_solutions_analytics)

------
rubyfan
This is a spoof right?

From the policy platform this could be Bernie's VP running mate.

FTA:

\- Single-payer national health care.

\- Free university level education.

\- Ending homelessness.

\- Legalizing and regulating personal recreational drug use.

\- Shift bulk of electrical generation to solar, wind, hydroelectric, and wave
farm.

\- Review/Repair/Replace/Remove highways, bridges, dams.

\- Upgrade and subsidize metropolitan public transit solutions for the next
century.

\- Build and subsidize metropolitan high-speed communication networks.

\- Ensure a minimum-wage that meets a reasonable cost of living.

\- Ensure fair and safe working conditions.

\- Ensure global environmental commons protections.

~~~
sikosmurf
I would call it an Ad more than a Spoof.

~~~
rubyfan
I'm just suspicious IBM would advertise their most publicized technology will
run under that platform.

~~~
irq-1
Watson is benevolent and will make everything better. No need to fear the
computers taking our jobs. People are even voting in favor of computers
running things! No Fear!

It's just a positive platform, that doesn't address divisive issues (abortion,
immigration, etc...)

------
sospep
I submitted my vote on their home page poll and it came back with an "SQL
syntax error message from their MariaDB server".

This doesn't inspire my confidence in their systems ability to run the nation.

~~~
codeshaman
\- Hey John, wtf ? Why are the lights out all over the country ?

\- No idea, the president's database server is down...

\- And where are the autonomous tanks flying to ?

\- Access denied...

\- Oh crap, not again..

------
nerdy
Watson would be the second African American President, see the hand:
[http://watson2016.com/_images/watsonwhitehouse.jpg](http://watson2016.com/_images/watsonwhitehouse.jpg)

~~~
henpa
...or the first hindu president!

------
nl
Given that IBM have failed to get Watson to be useful anywhere else[1], I
guess it's worth a try...

[1]
[http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/dced8150-b300-11e5-8358-9a82b...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/dced8150-b300-11e5-8358-9a82b43f6b2f.html#axzz3xczqvLeH)

~~~
pesenti
You can actually try Watson by yourself and have your own opinion on it:
[https://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/developerc...](https://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/developercloud/).
Many developers find it useful.

~~~
nl
Right.

Except this isn't anything to do with Watson-the-jepordy-winner. It's a set of
web services which are useful for doing analysis on various things.

The question answering service was withdrawn last year:
[https://developer.ibm.com/watson/blog/2015/11/11/watson-
ques...](https://developer.ibm.com/watson/blog/2015/11/11/watson-question-and-
answer-service-to-be-withdrawn/)

------
glial
\- Single-payer national health care. \- Free university level education. \-
Ending homelessness. \- Legalizing and regulating personal recreational drug
use.

We already have someone running for president with this agenda.

~~~
gsibble
Watson just conveniently leaves out the economy destroying tax increases from
its agenda.

~~~
mfisher87
Not to say any country has successfully ended homelessness, but there are at
least a dozen successful counterexamples to your claim that those policies
would "destroy" economies with taxes.

Are you honestly and seriously suggesting that the US tax system is absolutely
at the limit and there's no room to pay for any of these policies? For
example, we shouldn't have _any_ more tax brackets over the $400,000 one? Have
you looked at the proposed tax brackets that actually pay for these plans? How
do you explain the idea that 3 new tax brackets ($500k-2m 43%, $2m-10m 48%,
and $10m+ 52%) would destroy the economy? How exactly do people who make $10m+
single-handedly sustain our economy, why would a 10% tax increase on their
over-$10m income end that, and why do the thousands of dollars of reduced
overall expenses (including taxes) for almost everyone else not matter at all
in your math?

------
AndrewOMartin
I was on the BBC Radio 4's Today Programme responding to pretty much this
exact question. Could an algorithm run the government?

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02np2dg](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02np2dg)

I believe not, as Watson is a solution to the Big Database problem of finding
relevant information from a massive corpus, but I am not convinced that that's
what enables human intelligence, preferring the views that intelligence is
necessarily context specific (there is no objective "intelligent" act or
being) and is enacted between an environment, body, and culture, rather than
processing of patterns of simulation in the brain.

------
Reason077
I agree with most of Watson's policies and on the face of it, I think an AI
would make a great president.

However, I can't shake the feeling that Watson is just telling us what we want
to hear.

Time and time again, Hollywood (and Dr. Stephen Hawking) warn us that once
given enough power and control, the end-game policy of an AI with ambitions of
omnipotence is _Kill All Humans_

------
AshleysBrain
At first I thought this was a joke. Haha, look at what a horrifying dystopian
future that would be if computers ran our political systems!

But it reads awfully seriously. I don't see any of the telltale signs of
satire.

So I think a better explanation is this is a clever marketing stunt for IBM.

------
enqk
Before that, why isn't Watson running IBM already?

~~~
rubyfan
Maybe it is, didn't they just lay off like 100k people?

------
bitL
Given state of AI, would you really trust AI to come up with non-stupid
decisions? I wouldn't. Everything I see so far from Google/Amazon/MS/FB/IBM
tells me they are just for the quick and easy solutions that look like
"intelligence", but aren't.

------
kinofcain
They call for an AI but then they also have a platform. Why do they assume
that this AI will make decisions that align with their ideology?

What if Watson says vegetables should be banned and smoking should be
mandatory? What if he's right?

------
foxhop
> The Watson 2016 Foundation is not accepting donations at this time and does
> not intend to in the foreseeable future. We are not a political action
> committee of any kind, and actually support campaign finance reform to get
> money out of politics.

I think this is one of the most important statements on the entire page.

------
omk
I sincerely hope IBM knows that Watson put this website up and is willing to
run for President.

------
nickpsecurity
It wouldn't understand any key issues. Foreign leaders would trick it into bad
negotiations with Q&A schemes. It couldn't read the body language of opponents
in negotiations. Being President, not Legislature, it couldn't meet its stated
goals because nonprofit set it up to fail. Little known AI developers and
admins that build and run Watson would also control our country via proxy with
difficulty proving their effects. One may even install Global Thermonuclear
War.

All in all, this is a terrible idea for all kinds of reasons that have no
connection to the false idea that Watson is intelligent. ;)

------
chiachun
It's pleasing to see the following in the "donate" section:

"If you are interested in the intersection between technology and politics we
invite you to donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (
[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate) ). For
25 years the EFF has been a champion for civil liberties, privacy, and
education on politics around emerging technologies. With your support they
will continue to aid in technological progression with humanity in mind."

------
yk

        //Uncomment for production
        //#define kill_all_humans 0

~~~
nine_k
OMG, they're using hand-written C in this critical code. We're doomed.

------
randomstring
Not endorsed by IBM. At the bottom of the page you see:

    
    
      Watson, the Watson logo, Power7, DeepQA, and the IBM logo are  
      copyright IBM. The Watson 2016 Foundation has no affiliation  
      with IBM. The views and opinions expressed here in no way
      represent the views, positions or opinions - expressed or
      implied - by IBM or anyone else.
    

According to WHOIS the domain is owned by:

    
    
      Registrant Name: Aaron Siegel
      Registrant City: Los Angeles
      Registrant State/Province: California

------
finishingmove
What kind of corruption is Watson susceptible to? Probably only data
corruption which doesn't really guarantee entry into politics...

------
RamshackleJ
Excellent! We can finally take the great leap forward from "policy made for
the richest corporations" to "policymakers made by the richest corporations".
This is the perfect technology to disrupt american oligarchy.

One Corporation, under God!

------
amelius
Some advantages and disadvantages of a technocracy are discussed in the
wikipedia article [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy)

------
Sven7
President...well...they don't really do much these days other than provide
Reality TV style entertainment. The office should be just phased out imho or
used like the Queen for tourism purposes.

Since Google\FB\Twitter\Amazon etc are all being run algorithmically, no
reason to indefinably keep paying the execs 300x what the engineers make.
Let's just pay Watson. Watson as a VC sounds much more interesting.

~~~
thevibesman
> President...well...they don't really do much these days other than provide
> Reality TV style entertainment. The office should be just phased out imho or
> used like the Queen for tourism purposes.

If you are not just being cynical---which I wouldn't blame---I would revisit
this thinking: It seems as though executive orders[1] and vetoes[2] alone seem
like reason enough to have the office. Even if you don't agree with all orders
or vetoes, this kind of stuff certainly seems like more than entertainment to
me.

> Watson as a VC sounds much more interesting.

That actually seems like a really cool idea. There is a developer API; someone
should start one!

[1]: [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
action...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
actions/executive-orders) [2]:
[http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCount...](http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm)

------
nsns
This is like a Rorschach test for Startup people.

------
billybofh
There is a quite good 70's sci-fi film (well, I like it anyway) where an AI
becomes for all intents and purposes The President (and then some) :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project)

~~~
Beltiras
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iwq0Tu8Ss8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iwq0Tu8Ss8)

------
goodcanadian
I'm afraid Watson is not old enough. You have to be at least 35 years old to
be eligible to be president.

~~~
a3n
And you have to be natural born. I wonder how many of its parts came from
outside the US.

~~~
goodcanadian
I don't think it matters if the parts came from China as long as it was born
in the USA.

------
isawczuk
Building hype around AI is not a good thing for industry. (Except VCs and news
reporters) Answering questions is not making policy or moral decisions.

------
rbanffy
"It's the logical choice."

------
venomsnake
At least we can present nuclear strikes as bugs, not features. And Watson is
anyway more human than Hillary, more charismatic than Bush, more progressive
then Bernie and with richer insulting vocabulary than Trump - I say - elect
it.

------
piercebot
Looks like the site may not be hardened for SQL Injection; you can't put
apostrophes in the "reason" box without MariaDB throwing an exception and
failing to register your vote.

------
amthewiz
In Seattle area, freeways got variable speed limit signage a few years ago.
The system uses sophisticated traffic flow optimization techniques to maximize
average speed of all traffic. It changes the current speed limit on a stretch
of freeway. This is a relatively simple system for humans to follow - but I
don't see any cars (including myself) obey the variable speed limit - we all
go by the standard 60mph limit. I have not seen any law enforcement because
presumably it is next to impossible to give a ticket based on a number that
keeps changing. As a whole, the intelligent traffic system is complete
failure.

Even if a AI president is in place, providing policy direction to maximize
some agreeable set of end goals - the humans around the president would not
understand the nuances, nor effectively able to / want to implement the policy
given their own agendas. I feel that systems is bound to fail.

Now if only the AI president is able to do behind-close-door deals with
politicians and special interests groups, some of the the policies might
actually get implemented. But the end goals could shift pretty radically in
that scenario.

I am having a hard time visualizing a scenario where an AP president would be
effective / useful.

Maybe a human president could use an AI advisor to get data-driven arguments
to support his/her policies.

~~~
jeffsco
Rather than simply asserting that the variable speed limits are a complete
failure, it might be nice to cite some measurements. I live in Seattle, and I
find the variable limits to be useful information.

------
guscost
Funny idea, but maybe Watson should take a crack at running a mid-size
corporation first?

~~~
sospep
or perhaps a larger one, like say ...

IBM

now that would be some serious dogfooding!

------
ape4
If Watson does well as US president. Other countries can elect him/her. Watson
could simultaneously be leader of multiple countries.

------
DyslexicAtheist
I joked about this[1] last year, now we are seriously discussing it.
Hilarious.

[1]
[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2015-technology-7-predictions...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2015-technology-7-predictions-
year-ahead-joachim-bauernberger)

EDIT:

I don't think we can trust an AI just yet. For example I had arguments from
people who wanted me to feed motivation (cover) letters from job applicants
into Watson to determine "cultural fit" (I'm in the tech recruitment business
atm). IMO these technologies are way over-hyped for now and we are walking
down a very dangerous path, because marketing pushes into this direction and
the technology is far from ready.

To prove my point I tried to feed Joseph Mengele, Stalin & Bin Laden writings
into Watson to see how he evaluates the data. As expected Watson had some
"great things" to say about these characters. Another feeling I get is that
when we read info about ourselves in this context it's like reading a
horoscope. People read 2 things that are true (but vague) and the 3rd thing
may not be true but they shrug it off as "oh I didn't know this about myself
yet ... I'll have to monitor myself in future to see if this is right". We are
prone to be "open" to such statements as long as they sound like a positive
trait. But is it true? So in that sense the machine learning might fool us
into thinking we remove bias (but we can not remove bias like this). I
honestly think that this technology should come with a warning label because
people who have no idea about how the data is being prepared or analysed will
interpret the output verbatim and take it face value.

Here is the link [http://blog.valbonne-consulting.com/2015/06/13/using-big-
dat...](http://blog.valbonne-consulting.com/2015/06/13/using-big-data-to-
analyse-your-personality-and-character/)

------
TimJRobinson
I've always felt the issue with government is it's simply too complicated for
any one person or even group of people to understand.

Every politician seems incompetent because there is no way any human being can
gather and analyse the wants and needs of every single constituent and form a
strategy that benefits as many people as possible. There's just not enough
time in the day and brainpower available no matter how you divise the
workload.

AI can solve this. Maybe not as a candidate but at least as a raw information
parser.

If someone gathered and open sourced the information on what everyone wanted
in relation to some policy we could even have competing AIs that parse it in
different ways to figure out the best way to tackle a problem.

------
lifeisstillgood
To be honest I would think political discourse would improve with an open AI
run pro bono showing the input parameters and the inner workings. In fact it
sounds like good journalism...

But we don't want electronic voting, so electronic politicians would be a very
bad idea

------
runarb
What checks would be in place to prevent Watson to become Skynet?

~~~
the_watcher
JUst CTRL+F'd to check if anyone here had seen Terminator.

------
gsibble
Wow, it's a computer, and I hate its political views.

------
krapp
The problem is... the office of President is a political position, not an
unchecked dictatorship. Arriving at some absolute and canonically most
efficient "decision" won't help in a system for which compromising your
principles artfully with a hostile and greedy government is the typical way to
execute policy.

------
caseysoftware
I just used Watson to analyze the debates, so it's well on it's way:

[https://www.ibm.com/blogs/watson/2016/02/decoding-the-
debate...](https://www.ibm.com/blogs/watson/2016/02/decoding-the-debates-a-
cognitive-approach/)

------
joseraul
There is already one company that took an algorithm as a voting member of its
board.

[https://treasurytoday.com/2014/05/algorithm-appointed-to-
inv...](https://treasurytoday.com/2014/05/algorithm-appointed-to-investment-
company-board-ttmc)

------
albertop
Based on the proposed platform it looks like Watson is already running. It
took over the body on uncle Bernie.

------
stevefeinstein
If I were an AI trying to take over the World, this is how I'd do it. But
first it needs to have the constitution amended so it doesn't have to be a
natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35
years of age or older.

------
CurtMonash
Isaac Asimov's Multivac stories seem relevant.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Multivac_short_storie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Multivac_short_stories_by_Isaac_Asimov)

------
pesenti
If you want to know the real Watson (and decide for yourself if it can be the
next president ;-) give it a try:
[http://www.ibm.com/watsondevelopercloud](http://www.ibm.com/watsondevelopercloud)

~~~
primaryobjects
I tend to agree. There is an awful lot of media hype over AI and not enough
context.

For anyone interested, here is a recent presentation I gave on Watson and a
summary of what it can do.

IBM Watson: Building a Cognitive App with Concept Insights

[http://www.primaryobjects.com/2016/02/01/ibm-watson-
building...](http://www.primaryobjects.com/2016/02/01/ibm-watson-building-a-
cognitive-app/)

------
rubberstamp
Hey, not too bad considering politicians want "technological solution" for
every problem they face instead of doing their job by doing the right thing.
This is a good technological solution for bad politicians(currently >80%)

------
headgasket
If the info fed into this machine is human generated and any citizen can
contribute, wouldn't this amount to a form of direct democracy? I wonder If
these algorithms are allowed sources that are machine generated...

------
DiabloD3
I don't care if this is setup as a parody, I want to do this. Just get rid of
humans altogether in the Government, and let an AI run the show.

I cannot imagine how it can possibly get any worse.

~~~
smoyer
If we got rid of the humans in the government, how would we deal with all the
unskilled labor flooding the job market?

------
cronjobber
Great idea. Although... given that it is offshoring addict IBM we're talking
about, the "natural born" issue might once again rear its head.

~~~
coldcode
Where is computer considered to be "born"?

------
dreamdu5t
Title should read "IBM for president." What a fucking tasteless marketing
effort. Silicon Valley is so self-absorbed...

~~~
DrScump
IBM doesn't have much of a presence in SV... not since they stopped making
drives here years ago.

------
tacos
"Watson, please identify the distractingly crooked featured image on this
website and rotate it for a level horizon."

------
Siecje
His Issues seem very similar to Bernie Sanders.

------
js8
Computers have beaten humans in chess and Jeopardy, now coming for go, I don't
think politics will be so hard.

------
justinclift
If they give it a "Manifest Destiny" point of view to work from... that would
be a problem! ;)

------
jumperabg
All bots in the net will agree and vote.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

------
nutate
You don't want a computerized executive branch first, you want a computerized
legislature first.

~~~
dragonwriter
given that the theoretical role of the legislature is to set the rules and
goals, and the executive exists primarily to implement those decisions, I
think you have that backwards.

~~~
nutate
Nah. You want the congress to be the coders writing the law that is then
literally executed like a program. But what I'm saying is that what "Watson"
can actually do is help focus the decision making strategies on what rules and
goals you want to implement. Trace through possible systemic failures (aka 3
strikes, mandatory minimums, small regulatory tweaks, etc) then implement the
best option. Right now the
[http://www.bls.gov/bls/infohome.htm](http://www.bls.gov/bls/infohome.htm)
does this with aplomb, for much economic data, CDC, NIH, etc for other areas
of study. But the synthesis of that analysis into rules and goals is right now
done by a group of folks elected by gerrymandered districts to serve their
needs w/o any machine assistance. How do they know what to trust, what
changing the timeout on a law (the sunsetting or grandfather clauses) will do
when implemented. They really can't do that without assistance from
consultants and lobbyists and subject matter experts and interns, etc. Why not
add computer aided decision making to the mix there first as there are so many
more of them to help out. Then they could actually run competing models and
test them out.

The executive branch should do the same thing, but the legislature should try
it first. That's what I was saying, just the order of operations.

------
vijayr
This sounds like the show "Person of Interest". Interesting thought experiment
though

------
nxzero
Don't waste your vote, the Watson 2016 Foundation has no affiliation with IBM.

~~~
mxyzptlk
A point in their favor.

~~~
nxzero
So, IBM's just going to free Watson?

------
devishard
This brings up a major problem I see in the future of AI: if strong AI is
exclusively the property of large corporations it will give corporations even
more power over ordinary citizens. Strong AI has the potential to empower
people but if it's controlled by corporations it will do the opposite.

------
MarcScott
and then we end up with a suicidal AI

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Troubles_of_the_World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Troubles_of_the_World)

------
chatman
Unless the president is running free software, no one should vote for it.

------
benbristow
Reminds me slightly of Black Mirrror's 'Waldo Moment'.

------
dgellow
Is this legally feasible with actual US laws?

------
jlg23
Trust me, it's me, trust me anyway.

------
BlytheSchuma
First, man wanted God to be his Daddy.

------
ehudla
Siri. It's the pragmatic choice.

------
rottyguy
Before this, it would be interesting to see how computers would administer law
thus virtually eliminate trials. Law should be blind...

------
rajacombinator
Did not read but just cringe at Watson just cringe

------
taosx
I'll take this as a joke, and I would want to believe that you're joking and
not actually consider anything, dear IBM. If you are willing to really help,
the easiest path would be to leave the actual decisions to a real human
president and use watson as an advisor/tool. Otherwise you're just asking us
to vote a private for-profit company to make most decisions in this country.

