Yes I agree with this in principle. Although in this case what "good" is, is ill-defined - or rather different to everyone. The scoring each person performs is actually most directly a statement of utility to the scorer. That should probably go into the piece as an edit :-)
Any rating thst isn't bribe proof or mutual ranking proof will get instantly gamed and you end up in a neofeudalism.
Reminds me of https://community-sitcom.fandom.com/wiki/MeowMeowBeenz
So without some scheme, there will be no wealth distribution whatsoever, and potentially grim actions by national leadership.
It's a "utility-based" wealth distribution scheme.
I prefer to find a distribution scheme that is not isomorphic to communism.
Ironically, those places are the most communist. Everybody enters on a relatively even footing, and there are strong norms against directly profiting off your peers.
Communism as it was practiced, or communism as Marx envisioned it?
Because what Marx was envisioning was communal ownership of the means of production, which in the case of AI would mean communal ownership over the very businesses that necessarily have to replace humans with AI for cold hard business reasons.
I don't think Marx's idea of utopia is stable, game theoretically, but then very little utopian ever is.
What you've got certainly has enough merit to be interesting! But, as Communism demonstrated, the difference between theory and practice can have a genocide or three between them.
This is exactly the type of "tech bros are completely out if touch with how people work" vision of the future I guess we should expect from the guy that wrote this article.
Humanity has never lived in a world where leisure and idle time are not constantly being invaded by the oppressive survival demands or a hierarchal authoritarian mandate from a ruling class. If AI does provide a mechanism to allow humans to spend their free time in true leisure, like most of humanity living in the Star Trek future, then we should embrace it. Not straddle humans with artificial subordination.
Reject this as all costs.
The possibility of "humans to spend their free time in true leisure" is actually cited and specifically not rejected in the piece. It's addressing a very specific, and very dangerous, failure mode of a post-AI society.
Read the piece and be enlightened.
Also, jeez, I pine for the day when silly randomly-applied ad-hominems like "tech bros" just get dogpiled. For your own sake, elevate your discourse, man (or woman).
> Imagine a system in which every month, every human in the nation state or other political polity participates in an exercise of the grant of endorsements to other humans
My guy, we’ve literally written dystopian sci-fi stories about this. The most 1:1 identical one being that Black Mirror episode. How can you possibly think this is a good idea?
1) that the AI is actually smarter - not the case
2) that the robot is total higher efficiency - not the case, due to expensive resources and high density fuel
3) that the human is not degraded by the economic system below the pure machine - also not the case
The current winning mode is one of a cyborg - a human empowered with powerful tools, which may include robots and AI. And one human can only control so much.
I could see major (but different) issues with both scenarios.
