Yup… when the only rule in the engine is “maximize profits”, this is what we get. We need a version 2 that includes some kind of rule that also incentivizes “do good for the world” or something to that effect… however you quantify that. I’m not hopeful that iteration will happen though. It’s hard, if not impossible, for a system to change itself. It’d be like changing the rules of Monopoly while playing it where the current winner has the most leverage and influence on how the rules change. If you’re already winning, you don’t want to change anything unless it makes you win more. You certainly wouldn’t want to change it in a way that made it harder for you. So the only way to change the rules in a way that benefits the current “losers” is if all those losers unite to overrule the leverage of the winner, which is why the winner puts in so much effort to keep the losers divided and arguing amongst themselves about what the problem is and what rules to implement or change.
Yup… when the only rule in the engine is “maximize profits”, this is what we get. We need a version 2 that includes some kind of rule that also incentivizes “do good for the world” or something to that effect… however you quantify that. I’m not hopeful that iteration will happen though. It’s hard, if not impossible, for a system to change itself. It’d be like changing the rules of Monopoly while playing it where the current winner has the most leverage and influence on how the rules change. If you’re already winning, you don’t want to change anything unless it makes you win more. You certainly wouldn’t want to change it in a way that made it harder for you. So the only way to change the rules in a way that benefits the current “losers” is if all those losers unite to overrule the leverage of the winner, which is why the winner puts in so much effort to keep the losers divided and arguing amongst themselves about what the problem is and what rules to implement or change.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.