It seems like some sort of app or anonymous way to input opinions or ideas on a topic would be best to avoid the concept of groupthink, but would also need to be able to verify it’s a real person, not a bot. Certain aspects of AI could be useful in synthesizing results in a meaningful way. Open discussion of ideas, followed by anonymous submissions, then additional open discussions? This could build on commonalities while allowing people not inclined to engage in back and forth discussion to contribute.
I agree, although I feel anonymity is a double edged sword. Trolling is much easier when you don’t have to take responsibility for what you say, however we also can’t ignore the real issue of social pressure causing people to self-censure if they don’t have a pseudonym to hide behind.
I’ll be posting later today a critique/review of an AI assisted deliberative democracy system that has been partially implemented in Taiwan. Tom Atlee also has a 5-part blog series that looks at this system in depth and he mentions a strategy they use to combat trolling. There isn’t any anonymity (as far as I can tell); everyone can make a statement, and like/dislike other statements, but no one can directly reply to a statement. This essentially eliminates the ability to directly troll and instead the game becomes who can craft the nuanced statement that will garner the most agreement within the diverse group. The “rough consensus” is then mapped by the program Pol.is for all to see. It’s an interesting idea that seems to work at first glance…
It seems like some sort of app or anonymous way to input opinions or ideas on a topic would be best to avoid the concept of groupthink, but would also need to be able to verify it’s a real person, not a bot. Certain aspects of AI could be useful in synthesizing results in a meaningful way. Open discussion of ideas, followed by anonymous submissions, then additional open discussions? This could build on commonalities while allowing people not inclined to engage in back and forth discussion to contribute.
I agree, although I feel anonymity is a double edged sword. Trolling is much easier when you don’t have to take responsibility for what you say, however we also can’t ignore the real issue of social pressure causing people to self-censure if they don’t have a pseudonym to hide behind.
I’ll be posting later today a critique/review of an AI assisted deliberative democracy system that has been partially implemented in Taiwan. Tom Atlee also has a 5-part blog series that looks at this system in depth and he mentions a strategy they use to combat trolling. There isn’t any anonymity (as far as I can tell); everyone can make a statement, and like/dislike other statements, but no one can directly reply to a statement. This essentially eliminates the ability to directly troll and instead the game becomes who can craft the nuanced statement that will garner the most agreement within the diverse group. The “rough consensus” is then mapped by the program Pol.is for all to see. It’s an interesting idea that seems to work at first glance…