Transcription
Okay. Hello. Uh, welcome uh to our podcast. I'm Connor and Twistle. >> I'm Carol Morsky. >> And today we're going to be discussing uh Rousseau and digital governance. Uh Rousseau uh an enlightenment philosopher um from the uh 18th and uh yeah 18th century. Uh so we're going to be discussing uh topics today related to uh his uh ideas of governance and how they might apply to the modern age.
Before we start um I want to quick before I introduce the our main driving question I want to just quickly um define a few key Rousseauian terms and introduce Rousseau a little bit. So yeah, just as said he's an enlightenment philosopher um kind of a foil to Hobbes and uh Kant and other famous philosophers of this era. Uh he was a Swiss guy uh and he uh is uh most known for his concept of the general will. So my first definition um here is the general will which we'll discuss a lot and obviously um the general will is a pretty uh ambiguous concept um but as a kind of nominal definition the general will is something that represents uh the collective interests of a community and it's sort of distinct from uh individual desires and even collective individual desires which Rousseau calls the the particular will. Uh so getting that out of the way uh just a few other definitions as well. Uh the sovereign to Rousseau uh uh is the is the people. So uh as we'll discuss Rousseau is very interested in direct democracy. Uh and so Rousseau's idea of the sovereign uh is is a collection of people exercising um their full political rights uh and his idea of their full political rights. And then finally uh his idea of association his definition of an act of association is one that is a reciprocal engagement uh between the public and individuals. Um so that uh uh both u uh individuals are members of both the public and of their individual self and there's kind of a mutualism between the two.
So with that with those definitions out of the way uh our our driving question is does digital governance provide a viable path towards uh Rousseau's vision of direct democracy or does it exacerbate the very concerns that critics feared. So I've just talked for a minute so Krill if you want to uh start off um go right ahead. [snorts] >> So as we've defined digital governance I'll focus a little bit more on the AI side. >> Okay. Uh AI as I see it can act as uh one of the law makers that Rousseau talks about uh or lawgivers, >> right? >> Uh and uh that is someone highly perceptive of social trends uh society in general and he can uh make or uh push laws in a certain direction that would follow the general will. uh right >> although the lawgiver is not himself allowed to participate in society they are slightly >> uh outside of it >> to tyranny >> in this case I think AI uh for once might actually be a a good application >> okay interesting >> yeah of course uh you know Rousseau couldn't couldn't see it coming >> no no >> specifically because it's an outside actor I don't like obviously you can't have a large language model be a part of the general will that's just not how they work on a fundamental level. However, if you uh have a society that is uh extremely AI first, uh maybe a little past what we're at right now, >> uh but have >> uh but effectively have the general will >> uh or the population uh that there is made up of >> uh interact with AI on a regular basis. Uh yeah, >> that would uh effectively give it the uh language training to be able to perceive these trends that the lawgiver is supposed to have.
>> Yeah. So I thought that was super Yeah. Okay. So, I'm glad you said that because I was thinking about that too and like I've obviously we've heard other people like I you know I've heard this come up in the media and stuff you know especially with related to law for instance you know people think there might be AI lawyers and stuff you know why why you know have a person sitting there going through a million you know cases when AI can you know determine it very quickly and I've heard people kind of discuss you know AI is it's not a human and so like in a way it is like this kind of arbit arbitrating um force similar to this kind of lawgiver you know uh archetype that uh that Rousseau has come up with where they're kind of this like you know omni not omnipotent obviously Rousseau wasn't discussing you know obviously as you said like uh who wasn't envisioning you know an AI super brain >> but this kind of you know uh you know for lack of a better term this kind of aura guy who is just kind of you know locked in kind of clued into the nuances of the general will and has like a uh you know a good tap on on what it is and I suppose you know there is you know obviously I think personally I would be against this just you know and we'll maybe we can discuss uh the slippery slopes uh you know where what could go wrong you know uh soon but I feel like um uh you know that that kind of that kind of um kind of outside concept um like you know that outside that outside ability for this arbiter to exist does kind of embody um what you know that idea was where you know you just basically have a method by which uh the indiv general will can be actualized you know it's kind of you know humans interact with the AI and the AI um you know uh basically is just like kind of a medium by which uh we you know we uh you know kind of go through this process of turning you know billions of people's uh desires into kind of a cohesive thing. Um I don't know what do you think uh about um kind of you know what might go wrong there. I feel like uh a major thing and I'll I kind of came across this paper. Maybe I'll I'll let you go first but I'll talk about it later. Um but I came across this thing you know there is you know you know AI of course is still controlled by you know by a subset of humans right? you know, it's obviously that lawgiver thing would be an AI that is completely disconnected from any human. And I don't know, you know, maybe I don't know much about computers, you know, or the AI race. I don't know if that's possible. Maybe I don't envision that being possible. So, what do you think?
>> Uh, no, that is a good point. I think it uh flew out of my mind for a second when I was saying that. Um, I think uh well, you mentioned slippery slopes. I think that's the easiest starting point. Yeah, I think >> uh and and I I fear this might be a cliche opinion, but uh do you know uh 1984? >> Yep. Yeah, of course. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, if uh if I'm envisioning a society that uh is like so in tune to AI to the point that >> they can it it can act as a lawgiver. Uh the AI being specifically an LLM, not like a not not a different AI because LLMs are the hot new kid on the block. >> Yeah. >> Um then something akin to the what are they called? Uh telecom surveillance in 1984 I think would be a base requirement for like for specifically for that hypothetical lawgiver. >> Yeah, totally. Totally. I agree. >> And uh with uh a certain subset of people controlling the AI, I mean uh uh maybe uh maybe not too pedantic, but I mean uh I am kind of an all artist political guy if we want to dig into my opinions a little bit while we're at it. >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. But uh [snorts] uh maybe not art strictly as like an art art but uh you know it is a thing that is inevitably made with uh certain uh conditions and assumptions and values that would only be present in the society that would make it in the first place. So I think inevitably uh using some using an AI as the manifestation of the general will would inevitably be biased >> uh to the >> totally. Yeah. >> Totally. And I I feel like then like I feel like because I agree. Um and then I and I also think that um you know even though uh by virtue of it not being human like an AI uh you know uh kind of kind of uh system that we're kind of envisioning here it's you know it's it's both not a human and at the same time not a human. Um so you know it might be you know detached from uh uh the uh motivations of particular wills um but certainly it you know in its creation uh and over time it may may be influenced by them. And so I kind of feel like maybe there's a differentiation between like a kind of system of kind of I don't want I don't want to call it analog because it is an analog um but like you know a system where the digital governance is deeply you know human where the AI simply works as a background tool to make efficient you know millions of people opening their phones you know I maybe I envision a world where you know every person you know at 11:00 p.m. or 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, you know, opens their phone simultaneously, you know, that, you know, we say, "Oh, the vote is on Sunday." And everyone just votes from their phone and AI just makes that process actually possible amongst hundreds of millions of people, you know, and then there's kind of a different situation where the AI actually like also intuitits, you know, I feel like that lawgiver thing, you know, you could kind of go with or without in this sense. Um, and kind of and I was looking at so I just kind of wanted to uh to jump back to that slippery slope on that sense. Uh, cuz I came across an interesting article by a guy uh his last name is Talent. Um, and the article's title uh is hold on pardon me uh Rousseau's general will and AI a framework for democratic governance governance in the era of big tech. And he had four really interesting points that I kind of wanted to read out. It's very Ted Kaczynski. Uh the first or the second one is or maybe the third one, whatever it is. Um, but it's uh so he he says and I'm quoting here, I identify four ways that AI erodes the general will, the privatization of the public debate, the individualization of practices, the erosion of personal and collective will and the risk of technological despotism. So I feel like you know when we are discussing you know this digital governance and but like with or without that kind of you know the AI uh you know lawgiver form or maybe just more analog um there is kind of that whole other side of the debate where you kind of like are have to ground in you know okay look outside the window and all four of those things are possible because that those four things are kind of deeply involved in the current model of our governance. So you know any sort of you know digital governance model in 2025 that got released is going to be you know funded by some private company or some you know interest group or something where there really is no uh there is no um uh kind of true true independence of it. The Ted Kaczynski thing is more like how he always discusses how you know technology used to serve us and then uh now we serve you know we become you know the best example is every time you know at this point a new iPhone update comes out you have to learn how to deal with the new update whereas you know technology I'm pretty sure is supposed to help my life get easier but now it actually makes my life harder. I think Rousseau actually discusses something similar um kind of like why he was such a romanticist and stuff that you know tech technology kind of like breeds this um dependence on on um on social uh social uh congregation or whatever. Um so I also think you know that AI like you know on that slippery slope thing if we're all using it for the digital governance then it will completely you know our lives will completely revolve around it right and then at the same time while digital you know digital governance has to exist beside a digital world filled with all sorts of silly media and all that I don't think those two concepts can be unmarried where like there is no you know you know what we're discussing you know can in theory can be very interesting but then there's the practical side.
>> Yeah, that's that's a good point. Uh you did just really quick, you did specifically mentioned that uh AI can be used to kind of predict voter turnout. >> Yeah, sure. Yeah. And I forget if there's exactly a name for this effect uh but it's uh observed uh basically worldwide in elections where uh basically um uh oh I said worldwide, excuse me, I meant United States of America where uh a majority of Republican voters uh physically go to the polls and vote and then a majority of Democrat voters >> tend to either mail in or uh vote electronically. So, >> yeah, >> when uh the day one polls come out, of course, the physical papers are counted first and that skews uh that skews the predictions of the votes to the Republican side and that actually >> disillusions uh part of the voters that would have voted on day two. >> Yeah. >> Especially electronic voters. Um, how this relates to Rousseau is that I think uh inevitably uh this will uh erode uh the general will uh because of uh community disillusionment. Um, is that right? >> Yeah. Interesting. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. And what I like well okay on that point then it's like there's there's the whole principle of how like or not the whole principle but like Rousseau is all about you know you give up you know some liberties to gain a lot of other liberty um and I find that you know or just on your point for instance if you know in a concept of digital governance you know I you know I don't you know for like one fun example I always use is like I still use wired headphones and I'll be a hundred years old and I'll be getting you know into my teleportation machine in the morning in 2100 and through you know I'll be going to work at the quantum you know planetary whatever and through that whole process I'll still be wearing my wired headphones it's just the one piece of modernity that I refuse to get behind and I you know in that kind of concept of you know you either all of us buy in to the digital model right >> or like you know just in that sense you know >> that kind of two you know that that you know there's the digital and then you have that kind of paper voting just that you know that the modern you know that kind of modern situation you know you either all buy into this digital model or you have or you accept that skewed reality which I think are those two competing models. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well uh I mean yeah exactly Rousseau assumes that you will give up uh self-interest for the general will. However, he forgets that or actually he didn't forget because he's dead. But I mean, the example I used does, I think, pretty clearly demonstrate that self-interest will inevitably affect the general will. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No matter how you >> and and while there are still avenues in our society for self-interest, you know, related in a digital way and you know, you might argue that, you know, the digital world is basically only faking self-interest. It feels like at times >> um it it feels in in congruent with with like a actualization of some form of general will that's actually cohesive because you know if you have a digital government you know even the you know the the uh Nepal situation where they elected their new guy over Discord, you know, that is very funny and I do find it very you know cool and very Gen Z and I'm you know pumping my fist at the young people doing something like that's great but you know certainly not every voice was heard and also at the same time Discord, you know, I I don't imagine that the 60-year-olds in Nepal had much of a say here on on the new prime minister or president or whatever it is in Nepal right like I would imagine the people that have no idea how to use Discord versus the terminally online Gen Z Discord users you know might have a different ability to you know influence opinions throughout that process. And so while there's this great kind of disparity in in technological understanding that the digital governance model, you know, kind of in fact it kind of incubates um those kind of self-interest issues in a way, right? >> Yeah. >> It kind of exacerbates them further. >> Yeah. I mean, and especially with Discord, I uh honestly probably one of the easiest programs I've used to make alt accounts on as well. So, uh, how could you really be sure that, you know, all the votes were >> totally? >> Yeah. >> Legitimate.
>> Well, then, okay. Well, there's like I had this point actually. So, then the only way to do that would be uh and I saw this in another article that was it's called um it is called uh Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract for the tech world Geneva solutions. Um, and it's it mentions that the the Swiss had a referendum in 2021 where the government was like, "Hey guys, like uh so assumed apparently the government, you know, was caught off guard by this, but basically said, "Hey guys, here we're just going to have a quick little vote. Uh, I'm sure you're all going to vote yes uh for this digital uh digital citizenship kind of thing. Uh where the government would basically, you know, digitize the citizenship of every citizen. um and actually stated that private companies would probably do a lot of the heavy lifting there and very shock and shockingly to the government. Um, but you know unsurprisingly I think you know and a good thing is that the people went okay actually no I I don't want to do that I'm I'm I kind of respect you know good for the Swiss there being like okay I don't want my you know privacy you know I don't want my my citizenship and my my personhood digitized in this way uh and and you know, but absent that without that um you know, there is no there is no yeah assuring or ensuring that you know any digital government's model is legitimate. I think you know there is like a very it is good that we're we're discussing Rousseau because it is like very much you know communitarian well you know um you're only giving up your personal information in theory to your fellow citizens and then at the same time you're only um you know you're not giving up anything more than any other citizen is giving up and you're giving up that liberty uh you know that liberty of your privacy to receive you know the ability to engage in direct democracy and you know I I think I you know personally at this point I don't know outside of you know the theory in my head I can envision a world you know with that AI lawgiver or digital governance and so I I think the Swiss made the right decision there but nonetheless it is kind of interesting because the kind of actualization of that digital governance like would involve like very Rousseau you know communitarian like you're going to give up something buddy uh if you want to get you know a lot you know more in return you know in theory but right it is it is an interesting you know concept.
>> I think that's actually a really good example of general will in action. Um, >> sure. Indeed. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, if I uh just rephrase exactly what you said, but in Rousseau's words is that um uh if you if you consider the uh private companies parties and parties to politics. >> Um, you know, polit according to Rousseau, political parties divide society. >> Um, the general will does not not even does not want to be divided. The sovereignty of the general will cannot be divided uh into the sects of itself and >> therefore in the interest of protecting the general will the Swiss people of course voted against the law. So yeah, that that is actually an amazing example of this, I think.
>> Well, maybe maybe you know the question is you know does digital governance you know make the general will possible but maybe in reality what will happen is the concept of digital governance actualizes the general will a lot more than the actual digital governance does you know in the face of some of these issues you know you know I think it come you know when you know problems get so complex and so overbearing like that affect every individual like like AI or you know like these kind of digital problems of the modern world you know eventually there there does come points where you know it concerns every single individual right and it you know if push comes to shove like you know in the Swiss you know where they're they're actually forced to make a decision you know that general will I suppose you know obviously um it's still an ambiguous concept um but nonetheless you know is sort of actualized um I think at least so yeah I think it is yeah it is a good example so kind Like with all those things in mind and certainly there's like a load of a load of credence I think I I think we agree upon to just the Rousseauian concepts kind of like the you know the Platonic forms you know you know this ideas that Rousseau have had has had clearly are transcending um his time and context and is sort of you know becoming like eerily relevant you know in that sense and so like conceptually I think there's a lot of interesting aspects to the Rousseauian you know direct democracy, you know, how it applies to AI and stuff. And there are a lot of good you know aspects just you know within the concept of the general will certainly you know you know the potential actualization of it you know being actually possible with with technology are you know certainly leaves a lot of you know you know positive optimism but then at the same time there is you know the kind of modern realities that are shackled to this kind of technology and whatnot that I can I think you know would totally might totally prevent you know that kind of perfect theoretical application. Um, so for the future, I don't know. I feel like, you know, you know, I'm happy for the Nepalese people and and all that. And I think I think perhaps it might be those, you know, it might it might be a use case thing, you know, where, you know, not every country is going to, you know, it's going to be deeply down to how the individual society functions. You know, maybe a really rural society. I guess we're both from rural societies, Canada and Russia. Um, you know, it might be easier for the people in Oyakon or Yellowknife, you know, like to, you know, to not have to run down to the capital 6,000 bloody kilometers away, you know, to to really have their voice heard, you know, in concept. I think as from being from two massive countries like that, it's easier for like that's actually something I can really understand.
>> But then at the same time, it's it the practical applications indeed. Um, I'm not sure. Uh, it makes me very uncertain for the future. I don't know. I don't know what you think. Uh, final thoughts.
>> Um, I'll give you a practical application real quick. I think >> uh, you know, assuming AI as a lawgiver and assuming actually a second lawgiver could uh controlling the AI just to make it extra unbiased. I think it could actually uh be used kind of like uh uh and maybe maybe don't take this the wrong way, but kind of like insurance companies do now where it could it could just simply be used to regulate how much property a person has and if it is within their means if they need more property to live uh under the general will or if they need to uh give some of it uh to the um to the society. to then use it that way. Yeah, >> there's of course a a social credit system hidden in there somewhere is you have to worry about. [laughter]
>> Well, yeah. No, certainly I think yeah, there's given given it's a lot to think about and uh I think we had a pretty good chat about it. I think uh I think it's left our viewers uh with a lot a lot to think about. Um, so with that with that, thank you so much Carill. Um, thank you audience for for listening and uh, yeah, I I look forward to hearing all you in the audience, all all our millions of followers, your thoughts on uh, general will actualization and the the digital age. So, thank you so much.