I really don’t care if the law was written by AI. I care about the review and approval of said law afterwards. If the solution is sound and everyone reviewed, this was a win. The fears about not revealing chatgpt use is troubling but I believe he is correct about perceptions.
The input prompt was pretty clear in its intention: “Create a municipal law … which prohibits [agency] from charging the owner of the property for the payment of a new water meter when it is stolen”
Writing that up in the relevant style-guide is all that the AI was asked to do.
Honestly, I’m increasingly feeling that things like this are a decent use for a technology like ChatGPT. People suck and definitely have ulterior motives to forward their group. With AI, there’s at least some degree of impartiality. We definitely need to regulate the shit out of it and make clear expectations for transparency in its use, but we’re not necessarily doomed. (At least in this specific case.)
There’s no impartiality in the training data an LLM derives it’s answers from. This is no better than anyone who owns a media consortium or lobbying group writing a bill for a politician. An LLM can easily be directed to reflect or mirror the prompts that it is given. Prime example are the exploit prompts that have been found that can get chat gpt to reveal training data.
The issue is when bills are not written by politicians or when they skirt committee which is what lobbyists do. LLMs are just another tool for that, except they’re even worse as there are fewer humans employed in the process.
As far as answering
*What prompts exactly were used? Is it at all independently repeatable? *
did you read the article? the draft was voted on by a committee, so it had to be read by other people. honestly, work like this is perfect for LLMs like chatGPT. what is concerning about this for you?
Here here. I agree with that also. However I'm starting to see a future where AI does pretty much everything for us and we turn into those fat blobs who just float around all day (what movie was that? With the robot E.T. looking dude?).
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's the "secretly written" by ChatGPT that bothers me. Not the fact that ChatGPT can conceive of something and write it out. I'm not completely against AI, I realize we use it with Siri and Alexis and other apps all the time. Just the idea that a program can create something which APPEARS to be from a legitimate human actor and really isn't at all - and can even get it passed into law. That's the part that is frightening, in my opinion.
Add comment