A new problem in social choice theory
S.L., a loyal MR reader, asks:
Suppose aliens came and demanded one or more chess games, one move per
day, with humanity (maybe these aliens):
where humanity would be destroyed on losing, and a draw would lead to a replay. One move per day. What would be the best way for humanity to run our decision process? How would we actually run our process? ("The committee must include at least one grandmaster from each UN country…")
I opt for Kramnik, Anand, Kasparov, and Carlsen, using Rybka and two or three back-up machines, such as Junior (which seems to find different moves). The Grandmasters vote, with 3-1 or better required for a move, but all four deferring at least initially to the single human agenda-setter and Rybka as tie-breaker. They would be playing a version of advanced chess. The goal is to have some different perspectives, but not so many that it becomes unmanageable. Most of the time the computer would get its way, but the four would consider those instances where Rybka suggests misleading moves.
Or is there a better decision-making process? Could a decision-making process like this be used for other dilemmas?