"Businesses ought to be like artists, not paperclip maximisers"

Na conversa da passada sexta-feira, o meu parceiro das conversas oxigenadoras falou-me de uma aplicação de inteligência artificial que o tem fascinado. Falou-me de vários postos de trabalho que rapidamente terão os dias contados e perguntou-me como será a competição no futuro quando todo o know-how estiver disponível na ponta dos dedos.

Eu não tenho a veleidade de saber o futuro ...

"Vaidade das vaidades, tudo é vaidade!"

Mas respondi com uma ideia que há muito partilho aqui no blogue: a arte!!!

Recordo:

• de Abril de 2017 - A ascensão do artesão e da arte na produção
• de Março de 2020 - Em que lado do teste do lápis está a sua empresa?

 Entretanto, ontem cheguei ao fim do último capítulo de "The Unaccountability Machine" de Dan Davies e encontro este trecho:

"they don't work by defining an objective function and seeking to maximise it. This is the paradigm shift that might be required - that organisations and systems can be like people, having purposes without a single goal. An artist doesn't have a successful career by maximising their art; they do it by repeatedly producing work that they are proud of.

That's what the world could look like if we got rid of the blind spots. Businesses ought to be like artists, not paperclip maximisers. The economic concept of optimisation, and the institutions of management and government which enforce its use, effectively act as a brutal information-reducing filter. By taking away the pressure to maximise a single metric (and therefore to throw away information that doesn't relate to it), organisations could apply their decision making capabilities much more effectively. They could innovate more, design more sustainable solutions and build less adversarial, longer-term relationships with their people."

Já nas últimas páginas leio:

"Any system which is set up to maximise a single objective has the potential to go bonkers.

It follows from the mathematics of constrained optimisation, combined with the basic laws of cybernetics. Setting up a maximising system involves defining an objective function, and throwing away all the other information. Sooner or later, the environment is going to change, and something which isn't in the information set any more is going to lead the system into destruction.

Consequently:

Every decision-making system set up as a maximiser needs to have a higher-level system watching over it.

...

You can't have the economists in charge, not in the way they currently are.

If every maximising system has to have a higherlevel system governing it (to make sure it doesn't go bonkers), then that logically implies that the top level of any decision-making system that's meant to operate autonomously can't be a maximiser. And so, the governing philosophy of the overall economic system can't be based on the constrained optimisation methodology that's currently dominant in the subject of economics. Otherwise there's a risk that the system will go bonkers, and that it will start pursuing maximising objectives, oblivious to the danger that it's on course for making human life impossible. Like it actually has done."

Recordo de Janeiro deste ano Não é impunemente ...