Lots of writing about the future takes one of two forms: Dystopian: everything is awful! Robots/Fascists/Communists/[Insert baddies here] have brought about the apocalypse, or made most people into their prisoners or slaves. Utopian: everything is amazing! Robots/Communists/Philosophers/[Insert goodies here] have fixed the world, and now there’s a new type of Femo-anarcho-libertarian-socialist-capitalist-democracy where everybody votes for and experiences good things and doesn’t vote for or experience bad things.
I think it is significantly more likely that it would be considered a violation of the 6th Amendment to use them as a substitute for a jury. Originalist thoughts will disagree with it simply because it is new and goes against the history of trial by jury, and liberal Justices will be skeptical for the biased reasons you mentioned. I do suspect the algorithm will be admitted as evidence at one point, but even that will require the supreme court to either overrule or make a large carve out from People v. Collins. There is still a large chance that algorithms will be treated the same as the evidence of statistical improbability in that case, and be completely banned.
Edit: People v. Collins was a California supreme court decision, so technically it only applies in California, but most states treat it similarly.
"But unless we get the 5% chance world where there’s an existential catastrophe by 2072, or the 0.1% chance world where AI somehow fixes every problem known to man (feel free to contest the percentages, I didn’t think that hard about them)"
Not sure on the individual percentages, but I suspect they add up to at least 90%
I think it is significantly more likely that it would be considered a violation of the 6th Amendment to use them as a substitute for a jury. Originalist thoughts will disagree with it simply because it is new and goes against the history of trial by jury, and liberal Justices will be skeptical for the biased reasons you mentioned. I do suspect the algorithm will be admitted as evidence at one point, but even that will require the supreme court to either overrule or make a large carve out from People v. Collins. There is still a large chance that algorithms will be treated the same as the evidence of statistical improbability in that case, and be completely banned.
Edit: People v. Collins was a California supreme court decision, so technically it only applies in California, but most states treat it similarly.
Good post!
All pretty plausible. Though I think in this world, gains would indeed be driven by IQ and AI.
Also I want an apology from Fukuyama. “End of history” lol.
> the equivalent figure for Subsaharan Africa is around $26,000
I notice that this seems kind of unlikely to me. Looking at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-2020?country=NER%7EMLI%7ETCD%7ECAF%7EETH, GDP per capita in a few random sub-saharian countries seems like it has remained roughly constant or underwent ~1 doubling in the last 50 years, so extrapolating from that, I don't see it.
"But unless we get the 5% chance world where there’s an existential catastrophe by 2072, or the 0.1% chance world where AI somehow fixes every problem known to man (feel free to contest the percentages, I didn’t think that hard about them)"
Not sure on the individual percentages, but I suspect they add up to at least 90%
According to tradingeconomics, GDP Per capita in the United States 2022 is 62.2k USD.
what makes it to be so different from your figures?