I am not looking to argue. I just don’t think there is a future for the law profession in a post-scarcity society. Disagreements will occur and negotiations will exist, but there are better ways to resolve them.
Ideally, lawyers, marketers, bankers, and politicians will no longer be needed. They can all be automated.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
i mean, ideally everything can be automated. the reason we have lawyers is because there is (usually intentional) wiggle room in the law, and people sometimes need more than “society runs better if we honor our word” to act with integrity, follow the law, or put their shoppings cart back. some people need the stick of legal repercussions all of the time. automating politicians (unless you are going for a direct democracy, which no one has the time for) concentrates power in the hands of the people maintaining the automation. i agree with you on the other two, but i’m sure i could find justifications for human intervention in their processes if i tried. not to mention there’s a certain amount of ingenuity and talent that AI can’t duplicate. nearly everything i’ve seen that’s AI produced lacks soul.
also, i’m not a lawyer, i am just occasionally an expert witness or forensic analyst for some law firms and have some lawyers in the family. I specialize in one federal and two state titles, but again, i provide analysis i don’t practice law. my career has spanned four or five marginally related disciplines so
survirtual@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
AI can’t run anything, but it can act as an advisor and analyst. It will need to be completely open sourced and transparent. It will also need to be local. Direct democracy doesn’t work, a liquid democracy can. People have proven they do have the time with their social media use. The more active people can participate more directly, the less active can delegate their voice. Any and all votes can be revoked. All votes are of public interest and are open. If a delegated issue is in disagreement with someone’s opinion they can granularly change their vote.
Executive roles don’t exist via election, they are determined by delegated thresholds. Anyone occupying a role like that can be removed just as easily. Adjacent advisory or expert positions are filled the same way. Roles are divided into expertise and operate independently of other branches. A citizen can granularly choose their ideal people, and it contributes to them actually being the people. More preferred is they delegate to someone more knowledgeable than them that they actually know, and a delegation chain naturally selects the most qualified specialists.
With some imagination you can see how this could replace everything, because it is compatible with every system of governance that currently exists. The objective isn’t to dictate, it is to give people a voice universally. If people want to delegate their way into a dictatorship, they can. They can also remove the dictator just as simply, and the world can transparently see what the people want & act accordingly.
With the cryptography primitives commonly available now, this is possible at this very moment. It is possible in an incorruptible way, that could likely persist for thousands of years. The only piece that relies on human trust is identity verification, but the branching nature of a liquid democracy allows for factions to exist, so the natural uncertainty contained within identity is irrelevant. Output is a better measure than identity. If a faction’s output does not match their claimed identity people can isolate the collective and diminish their weight on an individual basis (I don’t trust A’s opinion on B, so I will weigh it less on C).
Anyway, just some food for thought.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
only problem inherent in the current generation of AI is that AI being wrong is inherent to the mathematical model, but that’s just a math problem don’t worry they’ll sort it out with another few billion dollars a year