
Algorithm appointed board director - ColinWright
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27426942?HN2
======
jqm
This is awesome.

If factory workers and truck drivers are going to be replaced by machines why
not board directors? Surely a well written algorithm can do much of what they
do a lot better. For that matter, Mr. Congressman and mayor of my town.... I
think there may be a more efficient and less corruptible solution to your poor
leadership.

Government by algorithm. The source of which is open for public inspection and
comment. It just seems this might be fairer and more efficient. And efficient
is often selected for over the long run. Which is why I believe this will
happen.

~~~
jal278
For the record, it sounds like this particular algorithm is pretty
rudimentary, and it is mostly a PR stunt; as the article states, many
corporate decisions are already the direct result of quantified information.

In practice I bet this would be less awesome than you might expect. To the
extent that human boards of directors already single-mindedly optimize profit
(largely indifferent to how such decisions affect humanity), it seems like an
entirely inhuman optimization of profit would be even more pathological.

Algorithmic government perhaps has more promise -- if what it is optimizing is
something that positively impacts the average citizen. Interestingly, I would
imagine such an algorithmic government optimizing something related to the
contentment or happiness of the average citizen would directly conflict with
corporate profit optimization.

In the end, what you end up with might not be so different than what currently
exists implemented by imperfect humans -- a battle between corporate and human
interests where those two interests come into conflict.

~~~
jqm
One way an algorithmic government might be more effective is at long term
planning. I think there is deficit of that in our current system... at least
in the US. Not to delve into political squabbles but it seems the current
system doesn't encourage planning beyond more than a term or two. So we wind
band-aiding crisis after crises and creating more long term problems rather
than implementing real long term solutions.

As far as it goes... laws and constitutions are a type of algorithm, however
imperfect. But.... implementation is a often a bit spotty when you have broken
components with a self interest and human emotions.

~~~
jal278
Insofar as the algorithmic government was democratic and optimized public
opinion, there is no reason to expect it will be better at long-term planning,
which is largely a human logical deficiency; we know the likely dangers of
global warming at yet we do not much care -- seemingly because it is a long-
term concern.

~~~
jqm
If these known concerns could be enforced by policy makers it might be good
for us all.

Nobody ever said mob rule was the ideal form of government.

And that's why I say..... constitutions are algorithms. Or at least crude
attempts at them. The idea is that the system confines and survives the
administrators.

And yes, the general wishes of the populace are represented. As they should
be. But when wishes serve to oppress others or create long term damage to
selves or future others this is a problem. Particularly when wishes can
apparently be bought and sold by those who control what we see.

This situation is where algorithm vs. individual leader is useful to society
in general. And this was, I believe, the initial idea behind the US
constitution, at least, and probably most others.

------
AndrewKemendo
It is my hypothesis that this type of work is exactly what Artificial General
Intelligences will be built to do first. to expand a bit, I believe AGIs will
be used to improve/augment decision making at strategic decision making
levels. After a certain point they will stop augmenting and simply take over
that role.

~~~
Houshalter
Engineering and optimization would be more practical applications. Putting an
AGI in a decision making position is also extremely dangerous (not that that
will stop anyone.)

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Oh I agree that there are TONS of better applications. My hypothesis is based
on how I think people will actually use it, not how I think they should use
it.

------
cperciva
I wonder how this is actually implemented in a legal sense. A board of
directors has a legal meaning, but a computer program has no legal standing;
do they have an individual who is legally the board member and who has entered
into an agreement to vote as the software directs?

~~~
walshemj
How would a program pass the fit and proper "person" test :-)

------
diziet
More realistically, this title should say "intern / data scientist who enters
the data into the model appointed board director"

~~~
jasoncartwright
Right, like a chess master is arguably beaten by a massive team of people that
put together a supercomputer... not the supercomputer.

~~~
RaptorJ
Yeah, but we don't say the computer was beaten by the collective action of the
neurons of the chess master. Or at least, that doesn't seem like the most
useful way to think about the problem. This is just a recasting of the Chinese
Room argument[0].

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room)

~~~
jasoncartwright
Not seen that before. Thanks - very thought provoking.

------
sklivvz1971
This is interesting and cool, but also scary in a way. In this particular
case, the algorithm can at worst fund the wrong company -- think of funding
some shady, amoral but profitable corporation.

It's much worse when algorithms will make decisions on boards of, say, weapons
companies, or health insurances, etc.

It would be like appointing a cold, amoral board member only concerned with
pure profit -- probably not great for society at large, but I could be wrong
of course.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
>It would be like appointing a cold, amoral board member only concerned with
pure profit -- probably not great for society at large, but I could be wrong
of course.

Theoretically, as defined by the fiduciary responsibility of a corporation to
it's shareholders, this is exactly what they would want.

The subtext of your statement is a contention that there is an inherent
conflict inherent in those two goals (profitability and social benefit), which
I don't think can be rigorously supported.

~~~
npizzolato
The belief that companies have a fiduciary responsibility to ignore all
ethical issues in search of maximum profit is completely absurd. You don't
have to look far to find companies that make ethical decisions that would be
difficult to justify from a pure profitability standpoint who aren't getting
suited by their shareholders.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
That is exactly my point though - the way to maximize profits is to provide a
social good in addition to your excellent product.

------
Thasc
Reads like an origin story for Iain Banks' 'Culture' novels.

~~~
cpeterso
Or the Vanguard corporation in _Use of Weapons_.

~~~
diziet
Except the Vanguard Corporation was probably a culture Mind checking in once a
couple of months on the progress!

------
hershel
Google ventures use algorithms to help with investment decisions in they don't
call it a board director, but its essentially the same thing.

------
ape4
Sounds wacky, but could be pretty sensible.

