• dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Someone with a provable, undeniable, zero stakes in the outcome of publishing said algorithm, while being of such moral fortitude as to be un-corruptable. IMO, if you find such a person, you’re probably better off just putting them in charge.

      Best bet is to raise the bar on any coordinated attempt to sabotage things. Multiple algorithms must be made by distinct parties, and the submissions compared against one another, and somehow averaged out (e.g. multiple running algorithms that vote amongst themselves) so that the only way to game the system is a very large and unlikely conspiracy.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Presumably anyone can, and people democratically vote on which algorithm is used. Direct democracy like this has its problems, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the oligarchy/plutocracy that we’re currently dealing with.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        Would still need to figure out a solution for tyranny of the majority, though. Left unchecked, a majority populace can easily vote their way towards being a strict ethnostate.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          For sure, though the tyranny of the majority is still strictly better than the tyranny of the minority, which we currently are dealing with.