Talk:Government by algorithm

Merge with Artificial Intelligence in Government

All algorithms for government and regulation except artificial intelligence seem to belong into e-Government idea. Even Blockchain is mostly mentioned as e-Government. --Geysirhead (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend close my merge suggestion. Artificial intelligence in government should concentrate on AI and this article on the actual form of government. --Geysirhead (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Primary sourced claim of first use

Recent edits to claim that this was 'first used' by Aneesh in 2002 are nonsensical given the rest of the history section. Even if we took the claims at first value, the papers referenced do not support that this was the 'first' use, and since they are all WP:PRIMARY (that is, all written by Aneesh himself), any inclusion of these claims is undue weight. - MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The term "Algocracy" implies "Government by Algorithm". The first use of the term was justified by the edits made, and MrOllie is clearly engaging in practices that aren't attentive to the level of detail needed. The papers referenced certainly do support that the word "Algocracy" was first used in 2002, and MrOllie has failed to justify his omissions. Any exclusion of counter-claims is undue weight, given the absence of counter-evidence, and while edits are welcome, complete omissions would indicate bias and inaccuracy. - Shiv issar (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not what you're actually edit warring to keep in the article, and as this is not an article about the term 'Algocracy', that is entirely irrelevant. - MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I do believe that the rather unhelpful practice of omitting a piece entirely was brought in by you, MrOllie. The author quite clearly states in the article(s) cited that the term "Algocracy" refers to "Government by Algorithm". If you have any constructive edits to recommend, based on the sources cited, or any other related sources, I'm all ears. - Shiv issar (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The author can say whatever he likes, it is clear that this concept existed well before 2002. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie - As I've asked, time and again, where is your evidence of the concept being articulated in the exhaustive manner that it has been? Where is the source that shows it being used as an entire system, as opposed to a component of a bureaucratic/legal or market-based system? My many thanks to Johncdraper - this page will certainly be important this century. - Shiv issar (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This information is already in the history section. We've got an article that currently says that the Chilean government built a system in the 70s, and then claims that someone else 'first used' the idea in 2002. Nonsense. - MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

removed "first"--Geysirhead (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This is still WP:UNDUE, since it is based entirely on primary sources. We would need to cite something that indicates somebody other than Aneesh or his coauthors cares about this. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi! I rated this Mid for WP:Scipol and created the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence page. This page will be increasingly important this century and needs the External Links and Bibliography cleaned up (and read), so as to improve this page. Thank you. Johncdraper (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Section on trading platforms ?

Perhaps a section on trading platforms (water trading, carbon emissions trading, perhaps even currency trading and stock trading) would need to be used. The idea is that prices follow demand and supply, meaning the best possibly price can be attained for the commodity, but to some extent it also helps governments as it also indirectly helps to preserve water better (and make better use of it due to higher pricing) and it similarly has benefits for reducing carbon emissions. In finance, it may help companies in a similar way. --Genetics4good (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Track and trace in government services

Are there any publically viewable (html-based) track and trace systems in government services (in example for specific government tasks such as preparing and delivering driving licenses (after a successful driving test has been completed), checking all polluted sites, finishing all points on the Nationally Determined Contributions plans, finishing adequate amounts of carbon sinks restoration) projects (which are able to meet the national Paris agreement goals when the other emission reductions trough the Nationally Determined Contributions (see https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx ) are calculated in) ? I'm particularly thinking of systems that allow

• showing the entire waiting queue
• show the entire amount of tasks on the waiting list
• show percentage of tasks completed
• show the exact progress rate per month (in %)
• allow showing a report for review of finished tasks

--Genetics4good (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint! The html-based systems, which show tasks, their queue, percentages completed and so on, are rather called issue tracking systems. Anyway, I can think of automatic number-plate recognition to be relevant. --Geysirhead (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, updated the section. Regarding the ANPR systems: yes these may be relevant, perhaps along with rectractible bollards that can be opened/closed using a card (or build-in ANPR), and even sniffing poles (measures pollutant emissions from exhaust). I know that ANPR and sniffing poles are used in some low emissions zones for checking cars prior to entering it (the ANPR allows automated fining I think). The bollards are used by delivery trucks that need to be able to deliver in city shops, keeping out the rest of the traffic out of the city center (might already be mentioned in car-free city article or a related article).

--Genetics4good (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Page name

This page currently has a section on "AI in education", but what I wonder is whether that is still a part of "government". The section mainly talks about improvements that can be done in schools and such but that seems quite "lower-level" and not still part of say the ministry of education (which is more "higher level").

I'm thinking about whether we can't change the name of the article increasing the scope. Say "Automation (society)", and then include a section on "government by algorithm" in it (and do a redirect from government by algorithm to Automation (society)). There already is a automation page, but that focuses mainly on automation in factories, not exactly on society (i.e. automation on those particular professions and industries that would have a major beneficial impact to society).

Then, it would certainly be possible to keep the section on education, and include other things too, like automation in healthcare (Artificial_intelligence_in_healthcare), i.e. the use of automated systems therein, such as high-end devices for diagnosing using AI (see icometrix, QUIBIM, Robovision, UMC Utrecht’s IMAGRT, AI Medical Innovation System (AIMIS), digital consultant apps like Babylon Health's GP at Hand, Ada Health, AliHealth Doctor You, KareXpert and Your.MD, ...

I'm also thinking about for example automation (semi-automation) in trucking (Vehicular_automation#Trucks). There's probably data there on financial benefits for logistics companies upon employing automation and accident avoidance due to driver fatigue, ... --Genetics4good (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"AI in education" issues certificates (degrees, A levels and so on), which are a part of the regulation and are mentioned by laws. The government sets the procedure for certificates and is responsible for the consequences. Otherwise, in case of private certificates designed by any non-government agencies, this is not the correct article. I would keep the governmental education system in this article and would not rename it. --Geysirhead (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When reading this article, my impression is of an essay that tends toward a "List of applications of technology and artificial intelligence in management"... —PaleoNeonate – 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed external link from AI politicians section

There is a link to Michihito Matsuda's profile on a site called ICObench. As far as I can tell, this "About" is user-supplied which makes me consider it a blog. Thus, it falls under WP:NOBLOGS. I think it also falls under #13 of WP:ELNO, "Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject."

The AI politicians section was added in this revision. Most (perhaps all? the edit summary suggests otherwise to me but I haven't compared the diffs) of the content was moved from Mayor (in this revision). This link thus originally came from this revision to the Mayor article. I have no reason to believe that this edit was in bad faith, rather they just seem(ed) to be an inexperienced contributor. Firvqipo (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• P1-BZ401 CCREDI 9U 20161128113928.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

create a position paper about the teacher who is not coming on her class

create a position paper about the teacher who is not coming on her class 49.150.98.112 (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)