e
the advent of digital mantua we
talk about his little contribute to a
better democracy
many think that greater
public involvement in the sphere
politics is desirable it’s more
easy to say what to do
I think that solutions are
possible using the tools
digital
it’s a ask us to think about
functioning of so-called
collective intelligence and from
to design systems of
languages and tools for a
more participatory democracy in my
starting point is the observation
that in a democracy
public opinion matters because
leaders need to get our
membership
if only to get elected and
when elected to accept
their decision
doug of course the temptation to manipulate
public opinion even to maintain the
population in ignorance for
subject it to the decisions of the experts
who serve their interests or at least
do not involve the public in
debates whose conclusions could
do not abound in their senses the
politicians often say they have listened
their fellow citizens and respond to their
requests
but most often we meet that
their activists or their supporters
who tell them what they want
to hear
and the debate remains confined between
people who share the same
opinions
so there is a real interest in
reappropriate his opinion and to
confront those of others
true democracy must focus on
build a shared understanding of
world in which we live challenges
that we are facing is to
allow the emergence of an opinion
public enlightened and unmanipulated at the
base democracy allows us to
choose seamlessly no
representatives
and it is true that the collective life is
something serious extremely
complex it’s a real job you have to
be well trained for that
our leaders are coming out of the big
schools of administration they have the
required skills and we must not
to doubt a priori of their dedication
hires are contracts
determined to administer us but
should we do this for years map
white and assess their work only
terms of their contract and better what
contract is not it we who should
write it when you’re doing
work at home it’s you who
define and your craftsmen’s needs
think about technical solutions
we evaluate the costs and you choose
the best saying
the craftsman is the specialist certainly but
it is you the client and as expressed
John says yes a sociologist and philosopher
American of the 20th century
it’s the person who wears the shoe
who knows better if it hurts and where
it hurts even if the shoemaker is
the expert who is the best judge for
know how to fix it to say yes the
democracy is not limited to consulting
from time to time the citizens by means
of universal suffrage
it must be participatory what
means on the one hand that citizens
must be fully informed about
stakes and that he can so
collaborative contribute to research
solutions to the problems that
so here’s the first step
of a participatory approach is that
we are fully informed when
this internet point of view contributed to
change the deal because it allows us
to quickly access information
precise rich documented I do not know
what is it for you but for me
during a meal with friends it is acquired
quickdraws his fastest
smartphone to check or complete
information and in seconds
internet made everyone agree
then this instrument incidentally
can be used to phone has become a
true cognitive prosthesis and he got
spread all over the planet
so that young people who live
in poor countries or retrograde sees
what’s happening elsewhere and want to
to change things
at home so only by
the information he conveys and his
universal character internet has
beneficial effects for democracy
then the most remarkable tool in
this opus digital ecosystem is according
me a Wikipedian because it shows so
convincing that collective intelligence
put forward by john said yes it can
walk
imagine a few years back
there is a conference like this if
someone tells you he wants
create an online encyclopedia where
everyone will be able to contribute freely
I think you would be told and I
first
yes and good luck
and yet it worked it was a success
unlikely but indisputable then in
wikipedia corner can it inspire us
to imagine a form of democracy
digital
well because it’s a one it’s a
example of what is called in good
French crowdsourcing to fangs in
English means crowd
so this is application that are
powered by the crowd
we will solicit a large number of people
to do tasks and the computer does
did not know how to do
satisfactory way
this information is then processed
by algorithms
in order to transform this multitude of
small contributions to something
useful
so we can do one an analogy
with cotton spinning you know that
the natural fiber of the cotton flower
is short and fragile but if you
twist these fibers on each
others you will produce a more wire
resistant that you can then
woven to produce clothes from the
same way the collective intelligence
does not emerge spontaneously
it’s not enough to bring people together
to express oneself as
example on social networks for that
it automatically creates
knowledge or lead to
rational decision-making
no if you amass a lot of cotton
all you are going to get is a
big meanwhile and a quota of tuna this
is not a shirt an already there is no
the buttons so my belief is
that computing can produce these
spinning and weaving tools that
allow to build knowledge to
From raw data that most
often are imprecise uncertain and
sometimes contradictory so if we do
not this work we will be content with
to accumulate information without the
treat without prioritizing
without criticizing it and we will end up with a
relativistic position in which everything
opinion is worth and therefore nothing has value
what makes the bed of ideas the most
stupid
the most far-fetched theories even of
about intolerable and that we see it
also on the internet and its door
from the water to the mill of people they are
skeptical about the role given to the public
in the political sphere then joseph
schumpeter been one of those
he was an economist a specialist
in political science a contemporary
of john said yes but obviously not
do not share his vision
this is what he said the typical citizen
falls to a lower level of
mental performance as soon as they enter
in the field of politics he
argued analysis in a way that he
will recognize immediately as
infantile in the sphere of his interests
real he becomes primitive his thought
becomes associative and emotional good in
summary and in everyday language
we are all idiots and our
arguments are stupid it’s true at
unless we take these terms in their
literal meaning but should we deduce
as far as our opinion does not count
the point of view of his peers does not hold
more if we consider that we have
of tools they will be able to do the
knowledge from contributions
imperfect
these tools should regulate the
conversation on the internet orchestrating
the speech acts that appears when
a critical discussion
so let me give you an example
of the way it happens during a
ordinary conversation then as
computing applied to a lot of
areas I’m sometimes led to
to be interested in topics that I do not
not master and my interlocutors do not
are not specialists in
data processing
which means we are all
inexperienced at least on some
aspects of the problem
we each have our share of diots if we
is not proud but it’s like that then
in such a discussion I can is
made to make a proposal and has
started developing a pitch goes
of course this argument is going to be
fragile a little weak if you want
because there are things that are
imprecise there are assumptions that are
implicit and arguments that
should be better develop redire
I’m trying to convince myself
to convince my interlocutors
and this is a critical discussion
implements
I am asked to specify some
definitions to make sure we get
understand well and talk about the same
thing
interlocutors will be able to issue
doubts make objections
they can try to refute certain
point I feel obliged to defend my
position by further developing our
arguments I may be forced to
make concessions to us from
amendments but I can also be
supported by other participants who
will abound in the sense with all
these interactions to my argument is
strengthen and gain credibility
but it may be that I
realize that I will not be able to
answer certain objections
the proposal does not hold the road I
file a bad cotton
at that moment I mourn
forget it was stupid and our
attention is focused on other tracks
can we consider several
tracks at once that are not
necessarily contradictory
on the other hand, if we come to
irreducible antagonisms ie
that they can not lead to a
consensus
we will have to find the point of
divergence
it will trace back to the origin of the
conflict
what is the cleaving question this
question that lies on the line of
crest and whose answer and finishes
which side
we want to orient ourselves so globally
a tale a well-conducted debate is such
that we would like to put it on
internet should allow both
build a shared understanding of
problem in understandable terms
by all to consolidate positions by
precise arguments and
documented and eliminate
proposals that do not stand up to the
critical and it should also allow
to bring out the real issues
it’s irsn and correspond to the cleavages
that appeared during the discussion
because a poll can actually
give an image of public opinion
that makes sense provided that these
questions be put in their
context or better as here they
are from the discussion itself
so in computer theory on
is very interested in what’s called
formal methods
so that does not mean we’re interested
to the formalisms for himself
sometimes maybe but the word forms it
refers to the art position form
basically when we try to model the
form of a well conducted debate we’re going
to ignore the content of
proposals to take an interest in their
interactions
we want to know how the system
evolves what is its dynamics
we are not looking
ah you’re not interested let’s say
content of the discussion at its
meaning that does not under control
people who participate in debates
we just want to ensure a discussion
criticism actually takes place
and not a set of monologues
then these tools must also allow
regularly build a
summary of the debate and possibly
to extract a survey associated with the cleavage
that appeared during the discussion
then more than two to do the
debate using these digital tools
and open it to all otherwise these
tools can be effective for the
conduct a debate for at least three
reasons the written form makes that the
arguments are explicit and therefore exposed
to criticism
the asynchronous character to the listener
can easily mislead his audience
excuse me a speaker can easily to
bizet his audience but it’s a
argument makes you uncomfortable you
will have time to think about it
document to discuss about formulating your
remarks or your critics and finally the
massive character
he will have at least someone in the crowd
participants that will not happen
abuse by a fallacious argument and
will bring the contradiction
in addition, the information that will be
so products will be perennial
easily accessible to the public and
will be enriched over time
of course still people have to
want to
to invest such a tool you will tell me
you prefer to buy your shirts
rather than making them yourself
also but maybe will be your attempt to
participate in a debate because we are
particularly sensitive to topics
they approach for other topics
we will just envy the curiosity of
understand and maybe the desire to
give your opinion by answering the survey
to try to understand is to start
disobey say the military the
seek to understand and do not hesitate
to criticize or make proposals
it’s a civic attitude and finally
we could be proud to wear the
shirt that we have ourselves consul no
thank you
[Applause]
[Music]
e
but
[Music]
”
Be First to Comment