Can Washington Be Automated?(politico.com)
politico.com
Can Washington Be Automated?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/washington-automation-congress-politics-lobbying-policy-216216
88 comments
A better replacement for Wealthfront is merely buying the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index . I bet we could create an automated version of the S&P but at this time its just not beneficial due to financial laws and also just talking to a person.
We need to think of automation as more of a cybernetics concept than just a program on a computer. In the front line you will have humans doing the Sales and that probably won't go away. In the back you will have computers which make decisions and in the middle you will have engineer(s) working on the interface. Once we can replace the sales experience thats when we will get there.
We need to think of automation as more of a cybernetics concept than just a program on a computer. In the front line you will have humans doing the Sales and that probably won't go away. In the back you will have computers which make decisions and in the middle you will have engineer(s) working on the interface. Once we can replace the sales experience thats when we will get there.
I think the idea is that you don’t want to be holding 100% US large cap equities when you’re in retirement.
Vanguard, Fidelity, and other funds all offer "Target Retirement date" funds which basically shift your asset allocation from stocks to bonds as you get closer to retirement. The individual mix is generally held in typical total-market index funds, mixed foreign/domestic based on the relative size of their economies. As long as you're okay with exactly-average investment performance (which is what index funds always give you), that's a good alternative, and the expense ratio is super low - 0.05% for Vanguard's offering.
Actually, I just looked, and Wealthfront and Vanguard invest in the exact same funds (Vanguard's VTI and foreign equivalents), but Wealthfront's expense ratio was around 0.12% vs. 0.05% for Vanguard.
Actually, I just looked, and Wealthfront and Vanguard invest in the exact same funds (Vanguard's VTI and foreign equivalents), but Wealthfront's expense ratio was around 0.12% vs. 0.05% for Vanguard.
I've never understood why these get recommended so heavily. A "target retirement date" fund seems conceptually much like a reverse mortgage - a way to liquidate everything you might have accidentally built up so you can make sure to piss it away just before you die and let your family inherit nothing.
What are you investing for? The targetless fund has higher expected earnings; the whole point of the targeted fund is to get less money in expectation than the normal fund will.
What are you investing for? The targetless fund has higher expected earnings; the whole point of the targeted fund is to get less money in expectation than the normal fund will.
For exactly the reason johnnyb9 points out up-thread: you don't want to be holding 100% U.S. equities when you're in retirement and the U.S. market crashes.
Target retirement date funds are very different from reverse mortgages. In a reverse mortgage, you're borrowing money, which you pay interest on, which is secured by a large asset you own (your house). The reason they're so dangerous is because you're paying interest on the borrowed money, so it compounds, and can eat up your home equity very quickly.
With a target retirement fund, it's a normal investment which you receive investment returns on, but the asset mix moves from stocks to bonds as you get closer to retirement. The reason for this is that you generally don't want to put any money at risk in the stock market that you can't afford to lose within the next 5 years. Market crashes are unpredictable and often take several years to recover from; if you're in retirement and forced to live off that money month-to-month, you may be forced to liquidate stocks at very low prices, often lower than you paid for them, wiping out your investment gains. You're supposed to move assets from stocks to bonds or other more predictable income streams as you get closer to retirement, so that you know that the money you need to live on will be available when you need it, and can just let the money you don't need to live on sit in the stock market until you do need it.
Target retirement funds automate this rebalancing, dollar-cost averaging out of the stock market as you get closer to retirement so you aren't tempted to panic and pull everything if there's a crash.
Target retirement date funds are very different from reverse mortgages. In a reverse mortgage, you're borrowing money, which you pay interest on, which is secured by a large asset you own (your house). The reason they're so dangerous is because you're paying interest on the borrowed money, so it compounds, and can eat up your home equity very quickly.
With a target retirement fund, it's a normal investment which you receive investment returns on, but the asset mix moves from stocks to bonds as you get closer to retirement. The reason for this is that you generally don't want to put any money at risk in the stock market that you can't afford to lose within the next 5 years. Market crashes are unpredictable and often take several years to recover from; if you're in retirement and forced to live off that money month-to-month, you may be forced to liquidate stocks at very low prices, often lower than you paid for them, wiping out your investment gains. You're supposed to move assets from stocks to bonds or other more predictable income streams as you get closer to retirement, so that you know that the money you need to live on will be available when you need it, and can just let the money you don't need to live on sit in the stock market until you do need it.
Target retirement funds automate this rebalancing, dollar-cost averaging out of the stock market as you get closer to retirement so you aren't tempted to panic and pull everything if there's a crash.
> Target retirement date funds are very different from reverse mortgages. In a reverse mortgage, you're borrowing money, which you pay interest on, which is secured by a large asset you own (your house). The reason they're so dangerous is because you're paying interest on the borrowed money, so it compounds, and can eat up your home equity very quickly.
You're confused; that's a regular mortgage. In a reverse mortgage, you sell your house to the bank for a defined monthly payment over X duration. It's a way of letting you spend the value of your house while figuring "hey, I'll die shortly before I lose the house".
Similarly, a target retirement fund is a way for you to pull your money out of the fund and hope that (1) you die just as you spend the last of it and (2) you didn't want to leave your family anything.
You can't live off of invested money by spending the principal. If that's what you're doing, you're not living off your investments, you're living off, and losing, your savings.
You're confused; that's a regular mortgage. In a reverse mortgage, you sell your house to the bank for a defined monthly payment over X duration. It's a way of letting you spend the value of your house while figuring "hey, I'll die shortly before I lose the house".
Similarly, a target retirement fund is a way for you to pull your money out of the fund and hope that (1) you die just as you spend the last of it and (2) you didn't want to leave your family anything.
You can't live off of invested money by spending the principal. If that's what you're doing, you're not living off your investments, you're living off, and losing, your savings.
You're certainly confused about target retirement funds - withdrawals from them are exactly like regular IRAs or 401ks. It's a target retirement date, not a target death date - when I have a Target Retirement 2050 fund, it doesn't mean the fund is empty in 2050, it means that I expect to cease putting contributions in in 2050 and start making withdrawals, and so the asset mix should change such that some fraction of the fund (depending upon your expected monthly withdrawals) is in fixed-income investments that will provide a guaranteed revenue stream, rather than stocks where you can lose principal at the whims of the market.
You're probably confused about reversed mortgages: my understanding of them is that you do not actually sell your house to the bank, you take a line of credit for a certain monthly payment with your house as collateral, and then rather than making payments on the loan, the interest compounds against the equity in your house. My stepfather was a former banker who did financial counseling for seniors (often including whether or not to take a reverse mortgage), so I do have some knowledge in this area...
You're probably confused about reversed mortgages: my understanding of them is that you do not actually sell your house to the bank, you take a line of credit for a certain monthly payment with your house as collateral, and then rather than making payments on the loan, the interest compounds against the equity in your house. My stepfather was a former banker who did financial counseling for seniors (often including whether or not to take a reverse mortgage), so I do have some knowledge in this area...
Structuring the reverse mortgage as a loan with the terms "you never make any payments, and no matter how much the face value of the loan reaches, you will never owe anything other than your house, whatever its value may be at the time of settlement" is a way to let the estate of someone who dies quickly keep ownership, but still pretty obviously a sale rather than a loan, in the same way that Islam-compliant financing is fundamentally still a loan rather than whatever they label it to avoid the Koranic prohibition on things being called "loans".
I'll accept the correction on target retirement funds, but I still think "lose your principal preemptively now to avoid it possibly losing value later" is a misguided approach. The only justification offered for these funds is that you want to pull out of the stock market, with its volatility, before you die, so that you can enjoy spending your money (in my model) or lower returns (in yours). Assuming you have any family members, the point of doing so disappears -- you can't realize the future growth in your crashed stock portfolio after you die, but they can. All the same reasons you want stocks when you're 20 and don't have children suddenly apply again when you're 80 and do.
I will note that kelnos's sibling response to yours takes the same view I've been taking - that the point of a target retirement fund is that you withdraw the money so you can spend it:
> You don't want to be 85 and have to do a major withdrawal due to illness right when the stock market is experiencing a periodic down-swing
I'll accept the correction on target retirement funds, but I still think "lose your principal preemptively now to avoid it possibly losing value later" is a misguided approach. The only justification offered for these funds is that you want to pull out of the stock market, with its volatility, before you die, so that you can enjoy spending your money (in my model) or lower returns (in yours). Assuming you have any family members, the point of doing so disappears -- you can't realize the future growth in your crashed stock portfolio after you die, but they can. All the same reasons you want stocks when you're 20 and don't have children suddenly apply again when you're 80 and do.
I will note that kelnos's sibling response to yours takes the same view I've been taking - that the point of a target retirement fund is that you withdraw the money so you can spend it:
> You don't want to be 85 and have to do a major withdrawal due to illness right when the stock market is experiencing a periodic down-swing
> The targetless fund has higher expected earnings; the whole point of the targeted fund is to get less money in expectation than the normal fund will.
The targeted fund also gives you a (theoretically) predictable outcome, dependent on when you want to retire. You don't want to be 85 and have to do a major withdrawal due to illness right when the stock market is experiencing a periodic down-swing, causing you to burn through your retirement savings too quickly. The point of investing for retirement for most people isn't to attempt to end up with as much money as possible (which could easily backfire and turn into much less than you need), but to do a reasonably predictable job of having enough money to last you until death, based on your lifestyle and expected expenses.
If you want to shoot for the moon, that's up to you, but most people are more risk-averse, and a target-retirement fund fits that risk profile much better.
The targeted fund also gives you a (theoretically) predictable outcome, dependent on when you want to retire. You don't want to be 85 and have to do a major withdrawal due to illness right when the stock market is experiencing a periodic down-swing, causing you to burn through your retirement savings too quickly. The point of investing for retirement for most people isn't to attempt to end up with as much money as possible (which could easily backfire and turn into much less than you need), but to do a reasonably predictable job of having enough money to last you until death, based on your lifestyle and expected expenses.
If you want to shoot for the moon, that's up to you, but most people are more risk-averse, and a target-retirement fund fits that risk profile much better.
Because most people care about de-risking their portfolio? Out of curiosity, are you long on Dogecoin?
I think it's mostly a trust issue.
Even when you "have all the facts generated from sophisticated algorithms giving you an unequivocal 'correct' answer", how do you know it's not pulling a fast one on you? Do you trust whoever gave you the algorithm? Especially that it's usually not some diverse group of open-source developers, but a particular financial institution with a product to sell you.
I feel that the desire for human interaction in matters involving money has a lot to do with having someone you can look in the eyes and see yourself if they're trying to defraud you.
Even when you "have all the facts generated from sophisticated algorithms giving you an unequivocal 'correct' answer", how do you know it's not pulling a fast one on you? Do you trust whoever gave you the algorithm? Especially that it's usually not some diverse group of open-source developers, but a particular financial institution with a product to sell you.
I feel that the desire for human interaction in matters involving money has a lot to do with having someone you can look in the eyes and see yourself if they're trying to defraud you.
So long as humans exist, there will always be a demand for other humans to explain things to them.
I think there's a generational thing going on here.
I'd love nothing more than to be able to buy stocks, real-estate etc through an online interface with 0 human interaction. Everyone I know above 40 seems to be the exact opposite.
Sometimes progress is made one funeral at a time.
I'd love nothing more than to be able to buy stocks, real-estate etc through an online interface with 0 human interaction. Everyone I know above 40 seems to be the exact opposite.
Sometimes progress is made one funeral at a time.
Similar. Our generation is more used to getting things done on our phones or computers, including human interaction.
I for one hate to run errand where i need to talk to someone. It is very inefficient, and socially awkward.
I for one hate to run errand where i need to talk to someone. It is very inefficient, and socially awkward.
I'm not sure it's here to stay though. The older I get, the more comfortable I and those around me seems to become at interacting with other human beings.
Nevertheless, an interface for "politics with 0 human interaction" is an open research problem.
define progress.
Unlike in business, the question in politics and policy is not primarily efficiency and profit, but justice (including liberty and democracy) and human welfare. The relationship between automation and efficiency & profit is relatively clear, but the relationship between automation and justice & welfare is not. I think the questions are:
1. Automation can reduce transparency, by moving open discussions and reasoning into obscure, sometimes proprietary computer code. Effectively, the person writing the code, or the person who controls the coder, decides the policy. For example, some courts now use software to determine prison sentences; what was once decided based on established principles and transparently detailed by the judge is now decided in some cubicals by developers and written in C (which is often prioprietary). Why are you going to jail? The software (i.e., the developer) said so. Also, remember that code is mysterious and obscure to most people outside HN; they have no understanding of what it is, of its significance, what it can do, etc. Many can't define the word "algorithm" or even "web browser"; even open source code provides no transparency for them (and doesn't for us, unless someone makes the extraordinary effort to review the code).
2. To whom will automation shift power? The lobbyists with the best algorithm? The people developing the technology and solutions (see #1)? Will automation democratize power or further restrict it? Note that the developers of one solution in the article went to Harvard. Sounds to me like the same people running Washington, and the same gateways to power.
3. Lobbyists who have more data about constituents in general and about major players in particular will have an advantage. It could increase competition to erode privacy in its most important context - politics.
4. Will it result in better policy - more justice and better welfare - or just more power for the few with the data and algorithms?
If I were devious and wanted to change judicial policy nationwide, for example, I'd buy the companies making software for courts. I'd be surprised if I was the first to think of that.
1. Automation can reduce transparency, by moving open discussions and reasoning into obscure, sometimes proprietary computer code. Effectively, the person writing the code, or the person who controls the coder, decides the policy. For example, some courts now use software to determine prison sentences; what was once decided based on established principles and transparently detailed by the judge is now decided in some cubicals by developers and written in C (which is often prioprietary). Why are you going to jail? The software (i.e., the developer) said so. Also, remember that code is mysterious and obscure to most people outside HN; they have no understanding of what it is, of its significance, what it can do, etc. Many can't define the word "algorithm" or even "web browser"; even open source code provides no transparency for them (and doesn't for us, unless someone makes the extraordinary effort to review the code).
2. To whom will automation shift power? The lobbyists with the best algorithm? The people developing the technology and solutions (see #1)? Will automation democratize power or further restrict it? Note that the developers of one solution in the article went to Harvard. Sounds to me like the same people running Washington, and the same gateways to power.
3. Lobbyists who have more data about constituents in general and about major players in particular will have an advantage. It could increase competition to erode privacy in its most important context - politics.
4. Will it result in better policy - more justice and better welfare - or just more power for the few with the data and algorithms?
If I were devious and wanted to change judicial policy nationwide, for example, I'd buy the companies making software for courts. I'd be surprised if I was the first to think of that.
The entire thing is that those who want this sort of thing are not interested in justice and welfare, they see politics as a way to enrich themselves.
I think that's always the major issue in politics. IMHO:
It's an issue of individuals: People are neither completely altruistic nor completely greedy. A very important factor is, where are the elite on that continuum? My humble hypothesis is that that's the main difference between a banana republic and first-world civilization and society. IMHO, the elite in the U.S. have swung far toward greed; the tax bill is a good example: There is no policy reason for it, not even a figleaf discussion of economics, and even the principles of conservatives (deficit reduction) are thrown by the wayside: They just want more money.
It's also an issue of systems: How do we design a system that marries power, on one hand, to justice and welfare on the other? Then those who seek power also seek justice & welfare, intentionally or not. Democracy is an (incomplete) solution to that problem: Power flows from making the people happy.
Despite the problems, the U.S. and other major democracies work and have worked for generations, and they work better than any other system of government. Somehow, I'm not sure how, that happens.
It's an issue of individuals: People are neither completely altruistic nor completely greedy. A very important factor is, where are the elite on that continuum? My humble hypothesis is that that's the main difference between a banana republic and first-world civilization and society. IMHO, the elite in the U.S. have swung far toward greed; the tax bill is a good example: There is no policy reason for it, not even a figleaf discussion of economics, and even the principles of conservatives (deficit reduction) are thrown by the wayside: They just want more money.
It's also an issue of systems: How do we design a system that marries power, on one hand, to justice and welfare on the other? Then those who seek power also seek justice & welfare, intentionally or not. Democracy is an (incomplete) solution to that problem: Power flows from making the people happy.
Despite the problems, the U.S. and other major democracies work and have worked for generations, and they work better than any other system of government. Somehow, I'm not sure how, that happens.
> Automation can reduce transparency, by moving open discussions and reasoning into obscure, sometimes proprietary computer code.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
Couldn't agree more. And aside from your points, I've been programming long enough to know I never want the fate of society decided by software. We're just not good enough at programming yet. Our tools are imprecise, our discipline is not rigorous, and we prioritize features and speed over correctness. I hold no illusions that we'd approach government automation with even the rigor that the space shuttle software was afforded.
Heh, thinking more about "speed over correctness": we can't even get that right with people making the decision. Consider the secretive, rushed GOP tax bill that just passed...
Heh, thinking more about "speed over correctness": we can't even get that right with people making the decision. Consider the secretive, rushed GOP tax bill that just passed...
> I hold no illusions that we'd approach government automation with even the rigor that the space shuttle software was afforded.
I can't see any reason why my an application for a spot in school should have anything like the rigor afforded to
99% of government automation is of the "handle the easy stuff and dump the hard stuff to the operator to use their big fat brain" variety. In theory, well factored systems and machine learning should let more and more of that over to machines happily :)
I can't see any reason why my an application for a spot in school should have anything like the rigor afforded to
99% of government automation is of the "handle the easy stuff and dump the hard stuff to the operator to use their big fat brain" variety. In theory, well factored systems and machine learning should let more and more of that over to machines happily :)
> 99% of government automation is of the "handle the easy stuff and dump the hard stuff to the operator to use their big fat brain" variety
Is that based on experience in the industry?
I think as politicos realize the power in controlling the software, they will use it as another way to exercise control outside the public eye.
Is that based on experience in the industry?
I think as politicos realize the power in controlling the software, they will use it as another way to exercise control outside the public eye.
Yeah, industry and gov :)
The vast majority of dialog between governments and citizens is kinda boring with occasional exception handling. Think tax handling... The exceptions are demanding, and require expertise, and looots of time, but most other things get 'rubber stamped'.
Politicos get lots of control through the tax code and supplier agreements. Software will just make them better at it ;)
The vast majority of dialog between governments and citizens is kinda boring with occasional exception handling. Think tax handling... The exceptions are demanding, and require expertise, and looots of time, but most other things get 'rubber stamped'.
Politicos get lots of control through the tax code and supplier agreements. Software will just make them better at it ;)
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about building automation to actually make decisions on legislation, or on things like "input evidence -> here's your prison sentence".
What if the code is the law?
So instead of writing laws in lawyer speak that nobody can understand anyways they would be written in C!
Lawmakers would essentially become the programmers
So instead of writing laws in lawyer speak that nobody can understand anyways they would be written in C!
Lawmakers would essentially become the programmers
Tangentially related:
I'm not sure if automated decisions are a good idea. But it would be really cool to improve productivity of politicians.
How can we expect our politicians, let alone our lay people, to understand all of the law's in a country? There is just too much text to grok.
Software developers build abstractions, write tests, refactor and simplify older code, yet no such trend seems to be occurring for law. Why not?
Politicians already do use references and bucketization, i.e. write a law for schedule one drugs, then add or remove entities from the schedule one bucket. Can't we abstract even more?
Recently I've been wondering if it is feasible to create a syntax for lawyers. Like a law language with a compiler, package manager and similar tooling to compile laws rather than write them from scratch.
Anyone familiar with such research?
I'm not sure if automated decisions are a good idea. But it would be really cool to improve productivity of politicians.
How can we expect our politicians, let alone our lay people, to understand all of the law's in a country? There is just too much text to grok.
Software developers build abstractions, write tests, refactor and simplify older code, yet no such trend seems to be occurring for law. Why not?
Politicians already do use references and bucketization, i.e. write a law for schedule one drugs, then add or remove entities from the schedule one bucket. Can't we abstract even more?
Recently I've been wondering if it is feasible to create a syntax for lawyers. Like a law language with a compiler, package manager and similar tooling to compile laws rather than write them from scratch.
Anyone familiar with such research?
> Software developers build abstractions, write tests, refactor and simplify older code, yet no such trend seems to be occurring for law. Why not?
Actually, the Common Law[1] (which the US, England, Canada, and other English-speaking countries) very much have a legal system that includes building abstractions, refactoring, and simplifying (though there are no tests). Judicial decisions are precedential and over time rules and tests are discarded or re-written to be easier to use and more applicable.
I think the parent comment is discussing legislation (which politicians enact), but the process by which judge made law develops and improves is very similar to how code evolves and improves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Actually, the Common Law[1] (which the US, England, Canada, and other English-speaking countries) very much have a legal system that includes building abstractions, refactoring, and simplifying (though there are no tests). Judicial decisions are precedential and over time rules and tests are discarded or re-written to be easier to use and more applicable.
I think the parent comment is discussing legislation (which politicians enact), but the process by which judge made law develops and improves is very similar to how code evolves and improves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
I think what you're describing is fundamentally against the incentives of lawmakers. Complex laws make it possible to decouple legislative goals from public-image goals: when was the last time you saw something that actually had to be explained come up in a televised debate?
I agree, lawmakers benefit because lay people cannot understand the laws being passed.
That said, this is the secret. We market this to the law writers!
Getting to a point where we have 10x productivity gain will be hard but after that any tool with a 10x productivity win will be adopted. That is a no brainier.
Now we are in a future where all laws are written in this new syntax, but shared as long compiled documents full of redundant legalese English.
In such a future, lawyers can write law and contracts easily but cannot read them efficiently. Imagine writing JavaScript but debugging the assembly...
Lawyers would naturally start asking their peers to share the "source" rather than the compiled "binary", for evaluation. It is just a no brainier.
Now you have a future with a flurishing new syntax dominating the entire ecosystem. Hopefully better languages are created, etc. You even have an entire generation of lawyers who only know these higher level languages.
This isn't an overnight solution but by the time lawmakers realize the trend of higher level syntax is going to hurt their ability to hide truth, the game will already have been changed.
That said, this is the secret. We market this to the law writers!
Getting to a point where we have 10x productivity gain will be hard but after that any tool with a 10x productivity win will be adopted. That is a no brainier.
Now we are in a future where all laws are written in this new syntax, but shared as long compiled documents full of redundant legalese English.
In such a future, lawyers can write law and contracts easily but cannot read them efficiently. Imagine writing JavaScript but debugging the assembly...
Lawyers would naturally start asking their peers to share the "source" rather than the compiled "binary", for evaluation. It is just a no brainier.
Now you have a future with a flurishing new syntax dominating the entire ecosystem. Hopefully better languages are created, etc. You even have an entire generation of lawyers who only know these higher level languages.
This isn't an overnight solution but by the time lawmakers realize the trend of higher level syntax is going to hurt their ability to hide truth, the game will already have been changed.
Can't tell if this is satire or not.
Just in case it isn't; we'd all benefit from laws that ordinary people can read, understand and follow.
When the quantity of law grows so great and complicated that nobody can feasibly read it becomes hard to be a law abiding citizen. Lawyers, despite rumors otherwise, are ordinary people too and benefit from clearly written law, in English for English speaking countries.
Just in case it isn't; we'd all benefit from laws that ordinary people can read, understand and follow.
When the quantity of law grows so great and complicated that nobody can feasibly read it becomes hard to be a law abiding citizen. Lawyers, despite rumors otherwise, are ordinary people too and benefit from clearly written law, in English for English speaking countries.
It wasn't satire, but I enjoy that you thought it was :)
I agree that society benefits when we have succinct, easily understandable laws for lay people.
That said we are currently moving father away from that target, rather than nearer.
I would argue software is doing the opposite. It started extremely obscure and has slowly but surely moved in a direction where a majority of people can learn to understand it in months.
Example, a 3 month "bootcamp" can now teach a lay person to write HTML, CSS and JavaScript and accurately predict the output of the interconnections of millions (billions?) of lines on code.
You might argue the bootcampers don't truly understand what the kernel is doing. This is the point though, thanks to abstraction, they can grok it without needing to dive deep.
I don't think there will ever exist a world where lay people will understand legalese. However, I do believe we can build a world where people can be trivially self taught and then grok new laws, and even write new laws of their own.
I agree that society benefits when we have succinct, easily understandable laws for lay people.
That said we are currently moving father away from that target, rather than nearer.
I would argue software is doing the opposite. It started extremely obscure and has slowly but surely moved in a direction where a majority of people can learn to understand it in months.
Example, a 3 month "bootcamp" can now teach a lay person to write HTML, CSS and JavaScript and accurately predict the output of the interconnections of millions (billions?) of lines on code.
You might argue the bootcampers don't truly understand what the kernel is doing. This is the point though, thanks to abstraction, they can grok it without needing to dive deep.
I don't think there will ever exist a world where lay people will understand legalese. However, I do believe we can build a world where people can be trivially self taught and then grok new laws, and even write new laws of their own.
I've studied law and computer science.
HTML, CSS and Javascript are not comparably complex.
In software engineering we can set scope and conceptual boundaries.
Law cannot. It is complex because the world is complex. Unless you have a mechanism for simplifying human nature, the law will continue to require specialists.
HTML, CSS and Javascript are not comparably complex.
In software engineering we can set scope and conceptual boundaries.
Law cannot. It is complex because the world is complex. Unless you have a mechanism for simplifying human nature, the law will continue to require specialists.
unfortunately while cynical i do believe this comment
captures the reality of the situation. whatshisface, what do you think can be done to take back US society and make it a little closer to what our seemingly more critically-thinking predecessors had lived through?
I agree this is a reality.
Just like the cynical reality that C/C++ programers don't want to encourage package managers. The higher the barriers to entry the more you're talents are worth.
The reality is, regardless of any one groups desire, the productivity wins of package managers are too great and the momentum of the larger software development community is moving towards package managers for every language and will one day include C/C++.
Similarly, lawmakers are a select few of a larger community of domestic but more importantly international lawyers. You give the larger community a 10x productivity win, and just sit back and watch the domino effect work.
Just like the cynical reality that C/C++ programers don't want to encourage package managers. The higher the barriers to entry the more you're talents are worth.
The reality is, regardless of any one groups desire, the productivity wins of package managers are too great and the momentum of the larger software development community is moving towards package managers for every language and will one day include C/C++.
Similarly, lawmakers are a select few of a larger community of domestic but more importantly international lawyers. You give the larger community a 10x productivity win, and just sit back and watch the domino effect work.
Lawyers already study the laws of other countries. It is common for precedents established in one country to be imported into another country by "persuasion". It is also common to more or less copy and paste legislation or other legal wording.
Draftsmanship is not the hard part of law. The hard part is everything else.
Draftsmanship is not the hard part of law. The hard part is everything else.
_Evidence_:
> when was the last time you saw something that actually had to be explained come up in a televised debate?
_Question_: > what do you think can be done to take back US society and make it a little closer to what our seemingly more critically-thinking predecessors had lived through?
_Logic_: An individual can only critically think about or evaluate things that are presented to them.
_Issue_: If something is glossed over, for whatever reason (be it too difficult to understand), it has not been [and likely will never be] presented for evaluation unless ____(Reason #1).
The issue doesn't end with the lack of presentation -- instead it ends with the consensus that it's OK or necessary to gloss over things because ______(Reason #2).
_Question_: > what do you think can be done to take back US society and make it a little closer to what our seemingly more critically-thinking predecessors had lived through?
_Logic_: An individual can only critically think about or evaluate things that are presented to them.
_Issue_: If something is glossed over, for whatever reason (be it too difficult to understand), it has not been [and likely will never be] presented for evaluation unless ____(Reason #1).
The issue doesn't end with the lack of presentation -- instead it ends with the consensus that it's OK or necessary to gloss over things because ______(Reason #2).
I was asking a completely friendly question out of genuine curiosity as to his opinion. your insinuation that I am not capable of logical thinking based on my honest question, as well as the cutesy symbolics is a little bit rude, and I hope you got a kick out of getting all the formatting to line up. A+ work
Please remain civil, even if you feel someone has insinuated something. Which, incidentally, they often haven't. This kind of thing is notoriously difficult to read, which is an additional reason to remain civil.
Edit: unfortunately you've broken the HN guidelines with incivility quite a bit in the past too. We ban accounts that do that. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act if you want to keep commenting here.
Edit: unfortunately you've broken the HN guidelines with incivility quite a bit in the past too. We ban accounts that do that. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act if you want to keep commenting here.
> I was asking a completely friendly question out of genuine curiosity as to his opinion.
Why do you feel the need to tell me this? I wouldn't have commented if I thought otherwise. P.S. There was no intention to be demeaning. Just intention to present the issue clearly.
As for the cutesy symbols, they're there to make clear that this isn't a problem because it's DIFFICULT to solve, as the solution is perfectly clear. Give individuals a voice by informing them and allow them to offer an evaluation.
The reason it's still a problem is because of a lack of leverage on the uninformed individuals' behalf.
No need to get worked up about simple things.
Why do you feel the need to tell me this? I wouldn't have commented if I thought otherwise. P.S. There was no intention to be demeaning. Just intention to present the issue clearly.
As for the cutesy symbols, they're there to make clear that this isn't a problem because it's DIFFICULT to solve, as the solution is perfectly clear. Give individuals a voice by informing them and allow them to offer an evaluation.
The reason it's still a problem is because of a lack of leverage on the uninformed individuals' behalf.
No need to get worked up about simple things.
> No need to get worked up about simple things.
Please don't cross into personal rudeness, regardless of whether someone else did.
Please don't cross into personal rudeness, regardless of whether someone else did.
I have had very similar thoughts over the years. To remove (or at least minimize) human bias, the law ought to follow the same strict if-then-else logic of code. All facts and evidence should be entered as variables in a system that can keep them all in it's metaphorical head at once. If there's a conflict, the code should fail to compile. There should be a revision history.
Due to the messy uncertainty of life, and our seldom perfect information, there would still be a need for humans to make the final decisions, but an automated recommendation with a confidence indicator would really be something.
Due to the messy uncertainty of life, and our seldom perfect information, there would still be a need for humans to make the final decisions, but an automated recommendation with a confidence indicator would really be something.
> the law ought to follow the same strict if-then-else logic of code
The law does do this.
There was a period during which this was so rigidly applied that the law forked into Common Law and Equity. The latter reintroduced fuzziness partly because of the increasingly absurd injustices of the Common Law at the time.
The law is filled with linguistic variables: "similar person similarly circumstance", "person having ordinary skill in the art", "buyer at arm's length without prior notice" and so on and so forth. These terms are all defined and understood, but they are not crisp, discrete concepts that can be safely reduced to a real number.
The law is a workable and incredibly reliable system, given the scale, scope, timeframes and consequences involved. Introducing something that flatters our own profession would not add net value.
The law does do this.
There was a period during which this was so rigidly applied that the law forked into Common Law and Equity. The latter reintroduced fuzziness partly because of the increasingly absurd injustices of the Common Law at the time.
The law is filled with linguistic variables: "similar person similarly circumstance", "person having ordinary skill in the art", "buyer at arm's length without prior notice" and so on and so forth. These terms are all defined and understood, but they are not crisp, discrete concepts that can be safely reduced to a real number.
The law is a workable and incredibly reliable system, given the scale, scope, timeframes and consequences involved. Introducing something that flatters our own profession would not add net value.
The law-lang that I imagine would be a failure if it couldn't replicate the current vagaries of today's laws.
The only thing I want to introduce is consistency through abstraction.
eg. If you want to write a law pertaining to minors, you need to define what a minor is. I'd like for the lawyers to just `import legal_entity::{minor};` and the definitions would self populate. Additionally, if you're writing a law about minors, you might need to contrast to non-minors, so you could just `import legal_entity::{minor, ...};`.
I'm sure even today definitions are relatively trivial to share, but sadly I'm not a lawyer and can't quite think of better examples of abstractions.
Maybe: eg.
The only thing I want to introduce is consistency through abstraction.
eg. If you want to write a law pertaining to minors, you need to define what a minor is. I'd like for the lawyers to just `import legal_entity::{minor};` and the definitions would self populate. Additionally, if you're writing a law about minors, you might need to contrast to non-minors, so you could just `import legal_entity::{minor, ...};`.
I'm sure even today definitions are relatively trivial to share, but sadly I'm not a lawyer and can't quite think of better examples of abstractions.
Maybe: eg.
current_entity.equals_with_specificity(person, Specificity.LevelThree)
&& current_situation.equals_with_specificity(situation, Specificity.LevelTwo /* Similar Circumstance */)If it makes you feel better, I had the same basic idea and only later abandoned it[0]. My optimism was tempered by going into professional practice as a software engineer.
> The only thing I want to introduce is consistency through abstraction.
By implication you're saying this doesn't already exist. Judges and legislatures undertake a constant, dynamic process of organising and reoranising the law into workable abstractions, seeking a level that renders a problem domain tractable. Typically these are called "rules", "tests" or "doctrines", depending on their scope and purpose.
> I'd like for the lawyers to just `import legal_entity::{minor};` and the definitions would self populate.
This happens when they say "minor" in regular legalese; a lot of boilerplate is generated from templates as-is. A lot of what solicitors call "bread & butter law" is repetitious, well-worn transactional law: wills, trusts, partnerships, real estate conveyancing and so on.
I do get some sense that you are mixing together statute and caselaw. These are both The Law, but the are created in different ways and have quite different forms. Statute is amenable to formalisation and indeed many legislatures have adopted "Plain English Law" drafting rules. Many legislatures also have reform acts intended to replace, consolidate, restate or remove various historical Acts resting on the books (you can find some amazing stuff in the attic).
But caselaw is very different. It is composed of judges giving reasons for their orders. It is a continuing conversation. There are no drafting rules and in general, there can't be, because the entire purpose of the system is that two parties can submit any legal question under dispute -- any question -- and be guaranteed to receive an answer.
Just as code often has "bugs" in the face of unexpected situations, so too can the law. But the law can be patched on the fly by judges (and later replaced by statute). It requires humans speaking in natural languages, which admit indefinite nuance in a way that artificial languages don't and shouldn't.
[0] http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/08/25/programming-in-legal/
> The only thing I want to introduce is consistency through abstraction.
By implication you're saying this doesn't already exist. Judges and legislatures undertake a constant, dynamic process of organising and reoranising the law into workable abstractions, seeking a level that renders a problem domain tractable. Typically these are called "rules", "tests" or "doctrines", depending on their scope and purpose.
> I'd like for the lawyers to just `import legal_entity::{minor};` and the definitions would self populate.
This happens when they say "minor" in regular legalese; a lot of boilerplate is generated from templates as-is. A lot of what solicitors call "bread & butter law" is repetitious, well-worn transactional law: wills, trusts, partnerships, real estate conveyancing and so on.
I do get some sense that you are mixing together statute and caselaw. These are both The Law, but the are created in different ways and have quite different forms. Statute is amenable to formalisation and indeed many legislatures have adopted "Plain English Law" drafting rules. Many legislatures also have reform acts intended to replace, consolidate, restate or remove various historical Acts resting on the books (you can find some amazing stuff in the attic).
But caselaw is very different. It is composed of judges giving reasons for their orders. It is a continuing conversation. There are no drafting rules and in general, there can't be, because the entire purpose of the system is that two parties can submit any legal question under dispute -- any question -- and be guaranteed to receive an answer.
Just as code often has "bugs" in the face of unexpected situations, so too can the law. But the law can be patched on the fly by judges (and later replaced by statute). It requires humans speaking in natural languages, which admit indefinite nuance in a way that artificial languages don't and shouldn't.
[0] http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/08/25/programming-in-legal/
I think given how hard it is for people to write even relatively simple bug-free smart contracts, I don’t think this is likely to happen any time soon.
Aside from that, one of the saving graces in the American system is all of the friction points between various jurisdictions that prevents government from being ruthlessly efficient. I’m not sure that it would at all be a good thing if we could actually correctly codify and automatically enact the will of the people.
Aside from that, one of the saving graces in the American system is all of the friction points between various jurisdictions that prevents government from being ruthlessly efficient. I’m not sure that it would at all be a good thing if we could actually correctly codify and automatically enact the will of the people.
I know Seneca Systems is vaguely working on ideas that seem related to what youre talking about but more on the social involvement front as opposed to deep analysis of overlapping laws and semantic deconstruction of how they could be abstracted. theres a few legaltech startups working on westlaw/legal database competitor that i know uses ML to build a large graph database of existing laws and their inter-relationships Fwir
Open Law Library (http://www.openlawlib.org/) seems to be trying to do something like what you're suggesting.
This is because our politicians don’t even read they law they passed or objected. A Democrat will always object a Republican law and vise versa. They will support their own party’s law
The only time you see the politicians opposed their own party is when the party have enough votes AND the politicians is from a state dominated by the other party. For example, a Republican from California.
If politicians have to do their own tax return, I can guarantee you the tax code will be a lot simpler than the 70,000 pages we have.
The only time you see the politicians opposed their own party is when the party have enough votes AND the politicians is from a state dominated by the other party. For example, a Republican from California.
If politicians have to do their own tax return, I can guarantee you the tax code will be a lot simpler than the 70,000 pages we have.
>A couple more clicks after that, and we’re looking at a summarized version of a bill tackling cybersecurity that the software has considered and rendered a judgment on, when it comes to the probability that it will become law. We’re not talking a rough estimate. There’s a decimal: 78.1 percent.
No way in hell is it producing probabilities calibrated to 3 significant digits. If some kind of testing of calibration produces proof it's even within 1 percent calibrated I will be shocked.
No way in hell is it producing probabilities calibrated to 3 significant digits. If some kind of testing of calibration produces proof it's even within 1 percent calibrated I will be shocked.
It's spitting out 3 digits for sure. The reporter is just too ignorant to realize that they're not 3 significant digits.
Obviously. It's both a concerning detail about the company (why are they displaying probabilities to a level of accuracy they can't possibly claim) and an indication the reporter didn't do due diligence. They actually use it to claim the company must have sophisticated software to get that kind of accuracy!
I’m somehow skeptical whenever I see a CEO holding a pen on a glass wall with random math formulas on it
You would be surprised at how useful Einstein's field equations are when deciding how many people to cutoff tomorrow.
Even better, the first two lines are like fundamental laws that illuminate nothing. I'm guessing on the second but it looks like just expanding what looks like a probability using a complete set. Can't really make out the rest of it.
Especially when he's copying them from something on his phone.
I'm not sure it can be but I certainly want it to be. My representative is a poor representation of me. I'd rather answer a questionnaire and feed the data into a virtual representative script that voted on laws on my behalf instead of a human.
On the flip-side, I don't want to live in a country where law is purely decided based on popular opinion. It is probably impossible to have a nation of purely rational, informed, soundly-minded voters for that kind of system. We are certainly very far away from that dream today.
[deleted]
> Already, clients are signing on to the idea: Toyota and the National Institutes of Health, to name a couple.
Toyota I can understand & accept, but is it appropriate for a branch of the executive to hire lobbyists to lobby the legislature? Just feels a bit unseemly to me.
> Quorum says its system also powers one well-known late-night comedy show—it won’t reveal which one—helping staffers scan YouTube to pull together almost instantly a selection of footage about topics they might use on that night’s show. Says Wirth, “They’re like, ‘What kinds of Roy Moore clips do we have?’” The software has already machine-read heaps of video footage, turning them into tagged transcripts, and sends off exactly the correct clip to that evening’s show. Millions of Americans, without knowing it, are getting their political news curated for them in part by a Quorum bot.
Sounds a bit like Last Week Tonight.
In the cases of lobbying & clip-selection alike, what I worry about is how we'll groom the higher-level people without running them through their lower-level paces (since the lower levels will all be automated). What I mean is that a lower-level job has at least two purposes: one is to perform a job, and the other is to audition for the next higher job. The former is what AI excels at. It's really, really easy to automate the job of an 18-year-old who answers phones and hands them to the next person. It's not so easy to automate the job of a 24-year-old who answers phones and hands them to the right person. It's really, really difficult to automate the job of a 36-year-old who answers phones and decides whether the topic is important enough to hand to his boss. It's really supremely difficult to automate the job of a 48-year-old who answers phones and makes decisions.
The problem is that every 18-year-old answering phones isn't just answering phones; he's also auditioning to be that 24-year-old finding the right person (experience he gets from the job itself). Likewise, every experienced 24-year=old is auditioning for the job of the very experience 36-year-old. And all those 36-year-olds are auditioning for the few slots as decision-making 48-year-olds.
We can really easily automate those lower levels away. But what will be our 'farm team'? Where will we grow the talent and depth of experience necessary for the higher levels?
Toyota I can understand & accept, but is it appropriate for a branch of the executive to hire lobbyists to lobby the legislature? Just feels a bit unseemly to me.
> Quorum says its system also powers one well-known late-night comedy show—it won’t reveal which one—helping staffers scan YouTube to pull together almost instantly a selection of footage about topics they might use on that night’s show. Says Wirth, “They’re like, ‘What kinds of Roy Moore clips do we have?’” The software has already machine-read heaps of video footage, turning them into tagged transcripts, and sends off exactly the correct clip to that evening’s show. Millions of Americans, without knowing it, are getting their political news curated for them in part by a Quorum bot.
Sounds a bit like Last Week Tonight.
In the cases of lobbying & clip-selection alike, what I worry about is how we'll groom the higher-level people without running them through their lower-level paces (since the lower levels will all be automated). What I mean is that a lower-level job has at least two purposes: one is to perform a job, and the other is to audition for the next higher job. The former is what AI excels at. It's really, really easy to automate the job of an 18-year-old who answers phones and hands them to the next person. It's not so easy to automate the job of a 24-year-old who answers phones and hands them to the right person. It's really, really difficult to automate the job of a 36-year-old who answers phones and decides whether the topic is important enough to hand to his boss. It's really supremely difficult to automate the job of a 48-year-old who answers phones and makes decisions.
The problem is that every 18-year-old answering phones isn't just answering phones; he's also auditioning to be that 24-year-old finding the right person (experience he gets from the job itself). Likewise, every experienced 24-year=old is auditioning for the job of the very experience 36-year-old. And all those 36-year-olds are auditioning for the few slots as decision-making 48-year-olds.
We can really easily automate those lower levels away. But what will be our 'farm team'? Where will we grow the talent and depth of experience necessary for the higher levels?
> The problem is that every 18-year-old answering phones isn't just answering phones; he's also auditioning to be that 24-year-old finding the right person (experience he gets from the job itself). Likewise, every experienced 24-year-old is auditioning for the job of the very experience 36-year-old.
Having interned in a political office, the other problem is that the 18- and 24-year-old described often doesn't exist, because there aren't enough to people to have the heirarchy you describe exist at all; the 18-24 year old answering phones is doing much more what you describe for the 36-year old (answering phones, logging constituent positions appropriately if it's a position call, directing constituent services calls (and any other calls they don't handle themselves) to the right staff person. And, on top of that, doing a lot of non-phone tasks like drafting correspondence, assisting legislative staff with research, etc., etc.
Of course, lots of staff are never college interns and do their first staff job as a graduate fellow, or as professional staff often after completing a law, business, or public policy and/or administration degree.
So, I'm both not worried that the lower level will be automated easily or much concerned that there won't be an entry path if it is.
Having interned in a political office, the other problem is that the 18- and 24-year-old described often doesn't exist, because there aren't enough to people to have the heirarchy you describe exist at all; the 18-24 year old answering phones is doing much more what you describe for the 36-year old (answering phones, logging constituent positions appropriately if it's a position call, directing constituent services calls (and any other calls they don't handle themselves) to the right staff person. And, on top of that, doing a lot of non-phone tasks like drafting correspondence, assisting legislative staff with research, etc., etc.
Of course, lots of staff are never college interns and do their first staff job as a graduate fellow, or as professional staff often after completing a law, business, or public policy and/or administration degree.
So, I'm both not worried that the lower level will be automated easily or much concerned that there won't be an entry path if it is.
This isn't really surprising, nor is it new. Remember the days when one needed to know how OS's really worked to write code? Or when code was in assembly? All of today's code does compile down to that, but I'm willing to bet a large majority of programmers can't grok assembly (nor do they need to).
Historically, we've seen the more tedious jobs get automated away to create better jobs that require more "human" skills. This is a good thing.
Historically, we've seen the more tedious jobs get automated away to create better jobs that require more "human" skills. This is a good thing.
Can it be? Probably. Should it be? Hell no, lobbying is bad enough with humans doing it, let alone algorithms.
Hopefully no Silicon Valley startups think this is the next multi billion dollar industry to 'disrupt'.
Hopefully no Silicon Valley startups think this is the next multi billion dollar industry to 'disrupt'.
Wouldn't those concerns be resolved by being open source? Could run the new automated system in parallel for some years first, like a second umpire in sports.
How does open source make policy decisions more transparent to the majority of people? Are you assuming that everyone in the country can read and understand the code? I get why programmers and readers of Hacker News could be enchanted by this idea: government by code shifts the power from one set of elites (the wealthy/connected) to another (programmers with a specialized skill set that can read the code). But I'm unclear on how that benefits the nation as a whole.
Why would you need everyone in the country to read and understand the code? You just need a sufficiently large group of academics, programmers, developers etc to identify issues.
> You just need a sufficiently large group of academics, programmers, developers etc to identify issues.
I don't attribute any sort of sainthood or trustability to academics over other segments of society. It's certainly not clear that programmers are especially qualified to craft public policy. Again, instead of one group of elites that can understand what's going on you're substituting another.
Look, with Open Source software, programmers are mostly the consumers of that open source software. The customers of that software can more or less switch and aren't forced to use it at the barrel of a gun (and in the cases where big companies DO have monopoly power, the fact that they use Open Source software doesn't really stop them from exercising it in ways that are clearly for their benefit but less clearly for the benefit of their users). But if you're saying that software is now going to determine who can be arrested and who can go free, how long prison sentences will be or who can go on welfare or receive public money, there is HUGE incentive to game the system. Right now I might find Academics trustworthy because they don't get a huge financial benefit depending on the outcome of their research. But if public policy is controlled by software the incentives to cheat are huge. Now you can say they'll patrol each other, but that just means the incentive will be to collude collectively, as an entire group, for their own benefit against society at large.
I don't attribute any sort of sainthood or trustability to academics over other segments of society. It's certainly not clear that programmers are especially qualified to craft public policy. Again, instead of one group of elites that can understand what's going on you're substituting another.
Look, with Open Source software, programmers are mostly the consumers of that open source software. The customers of that software can more or less switch and aren't forced to use it at the barrel of a gun (and in the cases where big companies DO have monopoly power, the fact that they use Open Source software doesn't really stop them from exercising it in ways that are clearly for their benefit but less clearly for the benefit of their users). But if you're saying that software is now going to determine who can be arrested and who can go free, how long prison sentences will be or who can go on welfare or receive public money, there is HUGE incentive to game the system. Right now I might find Academics trustworthy because they don't get a huge financial benefit depending on the outcome of their research. But if public policy is controlled by software the incentives to cheat are huge. Now you can say they'll patrol each other, but that just means the incentive will be to collude collectively, as an entire group, for their own benefit against society at large.
A big problem with the current incarnation of democracy is that there is no accountability over time of the various goals that officials claim to pursue.
If someone running for office says that they will make sure the local firehouse gets an X% increase in budget and that unemployment in the district will go down by Y%, there should be an unambiguous way of tracking, over time, how they are doing on their promises.
This "goal verification" seems like an important first step if one wishes to introduce meaningful computational processes in Washington. Ideally, over time, we would have a system against which we can run such promises: "The ministry of health says increasing the budget of X will lead to outcome Y, and our model agrees with this decision with a confidence of 90%".
Eventually, this system might even build excellent models of what happens in various parts of society when various parameters are modified. It could predict where new schools need to be opened based on the natality data provided by hospitals and local employment rates, what the plausible long ranging effects of lowering or raising corporate tax by x% would be, whether the opening of a certain factory requires increasing the budget of the firehouse in the neighboring district because the district is now over a certain threshold for fire risks, and so on.
If someone running for office says that they will make sure the local firehouse gets an X% increase in budget and that unemployment in the district will go down by Y%, there should be an unambiguous way of tracking, over time, how they are doing on their promises.
This "goal verification" seems like an important first step if one wishes to introduce meaningful computational processes in Washington. Ideally, over time, we would have a system against which we can run such promises: "The ministry of health says increasing the budget of X will lead to outcome Y, and our model agrees with this decision with a confidence of 90%".
Eventually, this system might even build excellent models of what happens in various parts of society when various parameters are modified. It could predict where new schools need to be opened based on the natality data provided by hospitals and local employment rates, what the plausible long ranging effects of lowering or raising corporate tax by x% would be, whether the opening of a certain factory requires increasing the budget of the firehouse in the neighboring district because the district is now over a certain threshold for fire risks, and so on.
[deleted]
Any analysis of the promise "unemployment in the district will go down by Y%" will be worse than useless, because politicians have little control over the unemployment rate. You would be judging them based on a coin flip. You have to include the quality of the initial promises.
As for modeling the effect of policy on the real world, lots of people already try to do this, and their results do not agree. It's a very hard problem, perhaps impossible.
As for modeling the effect of policy on the real world, lots of people already try to do this, and their results do not agree. It's a very hard problem, perhaps impossible.
Isn't this just building a guide to Congressmen based on their stats, and selling it to lobbyists? I don't mean to say "just" to minimize it, it sounds like a valuable product, but if you tripled or quadrupled that 160 headcount, I'd bet you could build this guide to the same quality and usefulness without using computers.
It doesn't threaten lobbyists, it's a product for lobbyists.
It doesn't threaten lobbyists, it's a product for lobbyists.
[deleted]
Bah. I was hoping this article was about automating away the politicians, not just the analysis of their neural network state :(
TLDR: backoffice work in Washington can be automated just like backoffce work in corporations. FiscalNote wants to advertise the message that anything involving capturing backoffice data flows is actually "A.I", which means the career of every politician is in jeopardy, without FiscalNote.
If Washington=Government probably 99.9% can be replaced easily. Maybe even more easily than most factory jobs. The idea that their jobs would be more complex is an illusion. The only stressful thing they do is fighting each other for more power.
However I bet it's one of the last places that actually gets automated. The value of the government is to give people reason to believe that everything is fine, that someone will deal with the big problems, etc. This story cannot be sold equally well if it's done by robots/AI. So even if we are really governed by AI some day these jobs will probably still exist. The show must go on.
However I bet it's one of the last places that actually gets automated. The value of the government is to give people reason to believe that everything is fine, that someone will deal with the big problems, etc. This story cannot be sold equally well if it's done by robots/AI. So even if we are really governed by AI some day these jobs will probably still exist. The show must go on.
If you can elect a dog as a mayor[1], I think the answer is yes... even without reading the article.
[1] https://roadtrippers.com/trips/16260761?lat=40.80972&lng=-96...
[1] https://roadtrippers.com/trips/16260761?lat=40.80972&lng=-96...
Yes, but automated for the people and not corporate lobbyists: https://united.vote
Should it be automated is the better question.
And should it be transparent? All measure of sins and inefficiencies cannot survive unblinking illumination.
Automation is about doing more with less. Washington strives to less with more.
I would say it should have been the first thing automated.
But I've come to understand these industries are NOT built on rational, dispassionate decision making. The reason they only have a foothold in automation is because at their core, they are deeply relational industries. Even for incredibly sophisticated, "rational" individuals.
People simply want a person to talk to and walk them through things - even when they have all the facts generated from sophisticated algorithms giving them an unequivocal "correct" answer.
It seems like lobbying is the same. There is an important role for automation. But I believe it will simply augment the existing offering rather than completely supplant it.
Politics is the most relational of professions. Rational policymaking is an idealists dream - and I say this as a metric-driven, lover of numbers who once believed in that dream.