group size and collective decision-making When there is one, of course āone person decidesā (dictatorship). The time of two is special, and majority rule and unanimous are equal.
- I donāt think there is much difference between two people talking and making a unanimous decision and one person making a decision after listening to the other person carefully. I feel like when you get up to 10 or so people, one person should make the decision.
- Why is that?
- One person listens to N people to make a decision, O(N), and N people talk to each other, O(N^2), because the cost of the latter increases faster. The problem starts to appear after 30 people.
- Because it would be too much for one person to ask, even if it is O(N).
- When a majority of people feel that their opinions are not being heard or ignored, they begin to oppose the dictatorship.
- So we needed a mechanism to make decisions in a way that wasnāt just one person.
- One example of its implementation is majority voting.
- Indirect democracy is one of them.
- Assumption that elected officials will deliberate?
- If so, then the limit is about 30 senators.
If āone person becomes unreasonable to listenā is a factor preventing one person from making decisions, then AIās enhancement of human cognitive abilities would increase the number of areas in which a dictatorship would be preferable.
Well, either way, at the level of tens of thousands of people, you need a non-human mechanism.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ć°ć«ć¼ćć®ćµć¤ćŗćØéå£ēęęę±ŗå® using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. Iām very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.