Maybe my condition today is not the best. But I can't follow that film. I maybe will watch it another day. Thanks anyway though I don't know how this relates to systemic consensus?
This system, "unanimous ai" has found a way to combine the intelligence of individuals. The results are vastly superior to mere voting.
For example, by polling 10 horse racing hobbyists, they were able to predict the top 4 winners of the Kentucky Derby in-order. Where the "smartest" person in the group only predicted the top 2 winners and a vote would have only predicted the first-place winner.
May I ask you, have you ever tried the self-test of the systemic consensus? So, between the given variants of
skiing,
skateboarding,
cycling,
swimming
hiking,
do you proceed in such a way that you choose each of the activities on its own, on the basis of your least inner resistance in giving your each score between 0 and 10?
In principle I have nothing against AI helpers, but because man is vain and this vanity is a (rather annoying) fact in the world, he wants to keep the feeling that he can make decisions even with people among people. I would just like to ask you to try it out for a short time on yourself or in your circle of friends or family, if, for example, you cannot find a quick agreement on a question (which produces relatively simple suggestions).
This little self-experiment should suffice for that long. I would like to know whether you would recommend it to others once you know it?
No, it is the exact opposite of a preferential choice. With systemic consensus, you don't go for what you consider your favourite from several possibilities. You determine your resistance to every statement available for election. The proposal that expresses the least resistance in a number of all voters wins the election.
If Hans is the person from a class representative election to whom the whole class has the least resistance, then Hans wins the election. Which can actually be quite different from voting for only one of the favoured candidates.
It's certainly not RCV. In the RCV method it's all about preferences, I copied the text from the link you gave me:
Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.
Maybe my condition today is not the best. But I can't follow that film. I maybe will watch it another day. Thanks anyway though I don't know how this relates to systemic consensus?
Thanks for the feedback!
This system, "unanimous ai" has found a way to combine the intelligence of individuals. The results are vastly superior to mere voting.
For example, by polling 10 horse racing hobbyists, they were able to predict the top 4 winners of the Kentucky Derby in-order. Where the "smartest" person in the group only predicted the top 2 winners and a vote would have only predicted the first-place winner.
May I ask you, have you ever tried the self-test of the systemic consensus? So, between the given variants of
do you proceed in such a way that you choose each of the activities on its own, on the basis of your least inner resistance in giving your each score between 0 and 10?
In principle I have nothing against AI helpers, but because man is vain and this vanity is a (rather annoying) fact in the world, he wants to keep the feeling that he can make decisions even with people among people. I would just like to ask you to try it out for a short time on yourself or in your circle of friends or family, if, for example, you cannot find a quick agreement on a question (which produces relatively simple suggestions).
This little self-experiment should suffice for that long. I would like to know whether you would recommend it to others once you know it?
It sounds like RCV (Ranked Choice Voting) - https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)
No, it is the exact opposite of a preferential choice. With systemic consensus, you don't go for what you consider your favourite from several possibilities. You determine your resistance to every statement available for election. The proposal that expresses the least resistance in a number of all voters wins the election.
If Hans is the person from a class representative election to whom the whole class has the least resistance, then Hans wins the election. Which can actually be quite different from voting for only one of the favoured candidates.
Here is a comparison of the two methods:
Your "least resistance" example looks like RCV, but your "majority voting" example is NOT RCV.
I guess you must read my article to understand systemic consensus. Here is another one where I explain it:
https://steemit.com/politics/@erh.germany/take-part-in-an-experiment-systemic-consensus-how-can-people-better-participate-in-democratic-processes
It's certainly not RCV. In the RCV method it's all about preferences, I copied the text from the link you gave me: