upvote
I wonder what a mega-bureaucracy but managed by AI would be like.. :)
reply
Fine you know more History but I don't think that the point of the article is to be historically accurate but rather to provide a theoretical explanation of why centrally planned economy is in fact quite difficult because of combinatorial explosion
reply
It is difficult, that's why it required a whole institution. And not just an institution, but with proper mandate as well.

In fact, Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month, specifically in chapters 3 "The Surgical Team" and 4 "Aristocracy, Democracy, and System Design" explains why strong (even, maybe, authoritarian) central planning is imperative for large [software] projects.

Without proper mandate the work would be undermined constantly. I'd like to also reference a "Broken Ownership" article [0] (discussed here [1]) which defends, among other things, the necessity of the mandate [in software projects].

All in all, if you don't have the proper mandate, resources and your project is sabotaged in other ways, you might not need look to far in the search of why it doesn't go as ...planned.

[0] https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37225397

reply
If they were not accurate about history, what else did they get wrong?
reply
V. Gluskov designed OGAS to help with planned economy but for whatever reason it got denied funding. Decades later we're trying to make AI do just that on global scale.

From WIKI:

In 2016, a book dedicated to OGAS was published in the US, entitled How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet, by Benjamin Peters, professor at University of Tulsa. Harvard University professor Jonathan Zittrain commented that the book "fills an important gap in the Internet's history, highlighting the ways in which generativity and openness have been essential to networked innovation".[15] A reviewer of the book at MIT wrote:[16] "Soviet attempts to build a national computer network were undone by socialists who seemed to behave like capitalists".

reply