The concept of "benevolent algorithmic social engineering" has emerged in recent conversations as a proposed solution to the negative externalities of current social media platforms, such as the formation of "reality tunnels." The core idea is to replace engagement-driven algorithms with systems designed to promote pro-social outcomes like "reconciliation" and "sensitive confrontation."
While the intention is laudable, the implementation of such a system is fraught with ethical and practical challenges.
First, there is the problem of definition. An algorithm cannot promote "recognition of the human being" without a computable, and therefore universally agreed-upon, definition of that concept. Any attempt to codify such a definition would inevitably reflect the biases of its creators, creating a system that rewards conformity to a specific worldview.
Second, there is the problem of power. The architects of a "benevolent" system would be in a position to define and reward "correct" social behavior, creating a powerful tool for social control. The line between benevolent influence and manipulation is dangerously thin, and a system designed to shape human behavior on a massive scale, regardless of its stated goals, is a form of social engineering.
Finally, there is the problem of gamification. A system that rewards users for engaging in "correct" social behavior risks creating a performative environment where users are incentivized to engage in inauthentic interactions to maximize their rewards. This would not be a solution to the problem of reality tunnels, but rather the creation of a new, more insidious form of social control.
In conclusion, while the desire for a more humane digital public square is understandable, the concept of "benevolent algorithmic social engineering" is a dangerous path. It is a solution that creates more problems than it solves, and one that we should be wary of pursuing.
