digraph { layout=dot rankdir=TB overlap=false concentrate=false bgcolor=lightblue //splines="" node [style=filled shape=box color=blue4 fontcolor=white] label="Effect change. Purposeful action in a particular\ndynamic situation." Influence [shape=hexagon] [shape=hexagon] }
Effect change. Purposeful action in a particular dynamic situation.
Influence on the system being regulated.
In AIC influence refers to the domain of political awareness, negotiation, coalition building in order to move toward action--creating something, removing something, or holding things as near the same as possible. This is where diversity is made visible and arrangements made for action.
.
Influence is the existence of pathways to transmit the effects of the selected actions to the regulated system. This is not a property of the regulator, but a function of the connectivity relationships that span from the regulator’s outputs to elements of the regulated system and its environment. If a regulator has no influence on the regulated system, it is not a true regulator, it is a simulation or passive observer, and there are no direct ethical consequences; which can be important when observing or simulating dangerous situations or testing a preproduction system.
Depending on the nature of the system that is being regulated, the speed and duration of the effects of actions can vary greatly. For example, a self-driving vehicle applying the brakes has an immediate effect on the vehicle’s velocity, which lasts until the next acceleration; a new ruling by the Supreme Court has a much slower effect on society but could last for decades or possibly centuries; and the cascade that can be caused by someone sending a message to the network of transmission repeaters known as Twitter followers is unpredictably chaotic in both speed and duration.
# In some systems, influence is more of a determining factor than variety. Indeed, the power of the law of requisite variety has often been overstated, for example, claiming that the subsystem with the most variety will control a system. ERT proves why this is not always true.
Let us consider two systems, A and B, that are competing to win control of system C, for example, two politicians seeking election. Often the variety of statements, actions, and strategies of the candidates is less important than their ability to purchase advertising to influence the voters. And if a robber uses a gun to increase his effectiveness, the use of a gun does not amplify his variety, it is just one existing element in his range of possible variety, yet making that choice greatly increases his effectiveness at manipulating his victims. Such an increase in effectiveness, like buying advertising, is best explained in terms of an increase in influence.
In the light of the concept of influence, the belief that variety can be amplified appears to be as delusional as the idea that randomness can be amplified. Feeding variety or randomness into a genuinely noiseless amplifier cannot produce more variety or randomness than was fed into it. The variety of the robber or an advertising message is effectively constant.
The six requisites described so far are necessary and sufficient for a system to be effective but are not sufficient for it to be ethical.