If humans cannot be trusted to do what's best for them, why not pass the responsibility onto something that could - an AI? According to a recent survey conducted by IE University in Madrid, approximately 30 percent of the 25,000 people surveyed said they would be willing to be governed by AI. One of the main reasons for this line of thinking is that people have simply lost faith in their political leaders and believe that machines would be able to make better, fairer, and more rational decisions that would benefit everyone.
Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum, recently sparked a thought-provoking conversation with his tweet: "What even is an institution?" Accompanying the tweet was a blog post by Dennis Pourteaux titled "Institutional Alignment" with a subtitle of "Navigating a Disorienting Era with a New Political Matrix." This highlights the significance and relevance of institutions in today's rapidly changing world, particularly for disenfranchised youth. The tweet and blog post come at a time when people around the world feel that institutions such as parliament, political parties, bureaucracy, and central banks - that we are used to - are already obsolete. The new paradigm of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) has emerged as a fit for the 21st century digital world.
With the tweet, Vitalik successfully prompted many people to question whether institutions like the government still serve a valuable purpose in society, as well as the effectiveness of current institutions. If the government is not fulfilling its purpose and delivering value to society, what roles can encryption, artificial intelligence, automation, and cryptocurrency play in shaping and refining our society and its institutions? In a similar fashion, Dennis argues that the disastrous institutional failures of the last decade have brought the question of their value and purpose in society to the forefront. Therefore, it is time for us to take a hard look at the role of government and other institutions in shaping our world and collectively ensure the greater good is delivered to society.
Nepal’s political paradox
The Nepal Rastra Bank, the central bank of Nepal, has declared a ban on the use of cryptocurrencies. Even though the ban was implemented due to concerns over the absence of proper regulation and the potential for financial fraud, this decision is akin to banning the internet in the 90s. Despite the republican setup portraying itself as one of the most progressive to date, many believe that its policies, and those of most political parties, are outdated and do not align with modern thinking. The current government and political parties can be described as being stuck in the past, failing to keep pace with modern technological advancements. At its core, communism advocates for the abolition of private property and the creation of a classless society in which the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the people. However, Ethereum enables individuals to create and manage their own digital assets through smart contracts, effectively allowing for the creation of private property within the platform. The interplay between these opposing forces is sure to be intriguing to observe.
The traditional institutions of democracy, politics, and bureaucracy are at risk of becoming defunct. With the advent of ChatGPT, people's hopes of replacing heads of state with AI have increased. In an article titled "AI presidents – a good idea or a disaster waiting to happen?" Richard van Hooijdonk discusses how the idea of having an AI president is gaining ground as the public becomes increasingly disillusioned with their current political leaders, who have failed to govern people based on facts and common sense, instead letting their emotions influence their decisions. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to change anytime soon. If humans cannot be trusted to do what's best for them, why not pass the responsibility onto something that could - an AI? In any case, government leaders will not be exempt from the upcoming robotic revolution, especially in light of the public's growing disillusionment with those in power.
Brilliant individuals such as Elon Musk and the late Stephen Hawking have echoed this grim vision by repeatedly warning about the existential threat that AI poses to humanity. However, many people seem to have a different outlook. According to a recent survey conducted by IE University in Madrid, approximately 30 percent of the 25,000 people surveyed said they would be willing to be governed by AI. One of the main reasons for this line of thinking is that people have simply lost faith in their political leaders and believe that machines would be able to make better, fairer, and more rational decisions that would benefit everyone.
One of the big problems with human leaders is that they are selfish mammals, while an artificial intelligence president could be truly altruistic," says Bart Selman, a professor of computer science at Cornell University. "Humans are actually quite poor at making compromises or looking at issues from multiple perspectives. I think there’s a possibility that machines could use psychological theories and behavioral ideas to help us govern and live much more in harmony.
At first, the idea of having an AI president may seem silly. However, considering that people already trust AI to perform tasks such as driving cars and airplanes, managing bank accounts, and making medical diagnoses, it may not be such a big leap to entrust the governing of a country to an AI.
In fact, some experts already believe that an AI president could potentially make more rational and impartial decisions, free from the biases and emotions that often influence human leaders. With advancements in technology, we could even envision building a new Nepal on Ethereum network and electing an AI president. While this idea may still seem far-fetched to some, it's worth considering the potential benefits and exploring the possibilities that technology can offer in shaping our future. Ethereum has the potential to disrupt old institutions, particularly those that rely on centralized leadership and control.
