Corporations today are not very good AI architectures—they’re good at passing information down a hierarchy, but poor at passing it up, and even worse at adding up small correlations in the evaluations of their agents.
I’d be cautious about the use of “good” here—the thing you describe mostly seem “good” from the point of view who cares about the humans being used by the corporations; it’s not nearly as clear that they are “good” (bringing more benefits than downsides) for the final goals of the corporation.
If you were talking about say a computer system that balances water circulation in a network of pipes, and has a bunch of “local” subsystems with more-or-less reliable measures for flow, damage to the installation, leaks, power-efficiency of pumps, you might care less about things like which way the information flows as long as the overal system works well. You couldn’t worry about whether a particular node had it’s feeling hurt by the central node ignoring it’s information (which may be because the central node has limited bandwidth, processing power, and has to deal with high undertainty about which nodes provide accurate information).
I’d be cautious about the use of “good” here—the thing you describe mostly seem “good” from the point of view who cares about the humans being used by the corporations; it’s not nearly as clear that they are “good” (bringing more benefits than downsides) for the final goals of the corporation.
Corporations are not good at using bottom-up information for their own benefit. Many companies have many employees who could optimize their work better, or know problems that need to be solved; yet nothing is done about it, and there is no mechanism to propagate this knowledge upward, and no reward given to the employees if they transmit their knowledge or if they deal with the problem themselves.
I’d be cautious about the use of “good” here—the thing you describe mostly seem “good” from the point of view who cares about the humans being used by the corporations; it’s not nearly as clear that they are “good” (bringing more benefits than downsides) for the final goals of the corporation.
If you were talking about say a computer system that balances water circulation in a network of pipes, and has a bunch of “local” subsystems with more-or-less reliable measures for flow, damage to the installation, leaks, power-efficiency of pumps, you might care less about things like which way the information flows as long as the overal system works well. You couldn’t worry about whether a particular node had it’s feeling hurt by the central node ignoring it’s information (which may be because the central node has limited bandwidth, processing power, and has to deal with high undertainty about which nodes provide accurate information).
Corporations are not good at using bottom-up information for their own benefit. Many companies have many employees who could optimize their work better, or know problems that need to be solved; yet nothing is done about it, and there is no mechanism to propagate this knowledge upward, and no reward given to the employees if they transmit their knowledge or if they deal with the problem themselves.