Poker

They say that politics is like poker and the latest win for computers is a wake up call to everybody. If a computer can beat you at poker then it can just as easily beat you at war. The balance of power depends less on who we elect but who we respect to program the computers. In studying heuristics and rethinking some problems that are similar to TSP, I discovered I could identify that the government is using techniques to deal with problems that depend on human choices which are horribly flawed and biased. If I can model a problem and generate a solution that is vastly more positive ( less loss of life ) then they are obviously not even using the tools that would find a good solution because they are using government bureaucracy to support government and not to do the work they claim.

The next game that will be tested is whether I can put all the proper methods and objects into a program and predict what program would work to elect a president. I do believe that this is the way it works now, but they depend on the limited scope of the human mind and the silence of the conspiracy and bribe to support it. I bet that I could create a computer program that would elect whoever I wanted in the same way that Randi created a fake psychic.

There is a very big downside to being duplicitous in an age of complexity and computers. The universe is a cruel dominatrix and when physical solutions for social corruption are found, the new serfs will be the madmen who seek to rule us with deception, secrecy, and cruelty.

If you promote and depend on a population that is unable to differentiate truth from fiction, you destroy the ground on which you govern.

I think the best test for a president is to play chess or poker with a computer and if they can win two out of three then they are fit. I think it was the legend of John Henry the steel drivin' man. I don't find it odd to consider using a computer to enhance my utility. Just because it is similar to thought in it's structure, doesn't mean it will challenge me for my HoHo and Mountain Dew hoard. I don't think this is an idle thought because somebody, somewhere is going to have a light bulb go off and say "If a computer can outfox the governments of the world I can control the world because they insist on fighting me with their limited personal methods." If you look at what happened after 911 you will see that GB failed to act and certainly was not responding at light speed and was unable to create an effective plan and if it had been a computer simulator he faced we would all be dust.

It is almost the exact opposite of War Games. If they trust the computer they win and if they trust the people in charge they lose!

I hear there is a really crappy sequel to War Games and it makes the same point that people will win in the end when the computer fails and I see that as silly now. If a programmer from the DoD wrote the program however, we should all duck and cover.