Polititian admits he used ChatGPT to generate new Law

[Bud]

....He did not make a single change to what the Chat GPT spat out - and the Law still passed.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/politician-admits-chatgpt-generate-new-law

[KE5FX]

Wait'll the Social Text editors get their hands on ChatGPT.  "Payback time, bitches."

[Stray Electron]

....He did not make a single change to what the Chat GPT spat out - and the Law still passed.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/politician-admits-chatgpt-generate-new-law

  Good!  Let's just fire all of the politicians and replace them with AI.  The government couldn't get any worse and we could at least save the money.

[jonpaul]

Alternative title:


ChatGPT  admits it  has  generated a   politician:  (fill in name as desired)

Jon

[SiliconWizard]

Not to do with AI, but with politicians and stupid law passings without much critical thought: that reminds me of the story of a law that almost passed (in the end it didn't, phew.)

It was about making Pi equal to 3.2 by law. The story is pretty funny.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

[TimFox]

Some legislatures have an independent department that aids legislators in drafting properly-worded legislation.
Some legislation obviously didn't go through such a department, leading to difficult court cases.
(Look at the actual text of the famous 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:  over the years, courts have reversed themselves on the grammatical and logical construction between the first clause about a well-regulated militia and the second clause about the right to bear arms.)
If AI drafted a statute, it might be a good starting place for a careful review before introduction to the legislature.

[jonpaul]

Written in 1787 

Article I Section 10 - US Constitution
No State shall .... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law,....

Simple to understand. Assumes that the politicians can

a. Read
b. think
c Obey  the basic law of the United States.



Jon

[Dan123456]

Grrrr this makes me so angry 

I seriously think we could do away with 90% of politicians at this point. I only say 90% as think we probably do need a small group of leaders for international relations or as a face of government etc. so maybe just keep cabinet for that but fire everyone else 

Honestly, what the hell are we even over paying the rest of these people for when our interests aren’t their priority and their at too lazy to even do their jobs?

I vote we just create an app and let each person vote on each piece of legislation. A true democracy letting every person have their say 

It’s not like that would be super technically challenging these days either and would save 10’s to 100’s of millions of tax payer money just in salaries each year!

[SiliconWizard]

Switzerland has a more direct form of democracy, although it's not exactly as democratic as it looks like in practice. But the voting for many things (and not just for representatives) is there.

I like the idea, but I also think it would be so easy to twist by various interest groups (who do twist politicians in our current systems, they would just do it more directly as democracy becomes more direct) that I'm not sure the end result would really be any better. I agree our current democracies are flawed, but I don't know exactly what we should do. Probably we should start growing up first, the rest would possibly follow.

[themadhippy]

Have the government  elected to power by a lottery,bit like jury service.

[lezginka_kabardinka]

Politicians are like diapers; they’re changed regularly, and for the same reasons.

[JPortici]

Something like that was already used here to STOP new laws, some politicians of the other side came up with a software in 2015 that takes the text of a law and spits out endless variants of the articles. Given they all need to be discussed, this usually tanks the law they don't want to be passed

Also, most laws are almost gibberish so they can be as vague as possible and can be interpreted in so many ways, i'm not surprised that ChatGPT passed. It probably produced a more understandable output

[Dan123456]

Switzerland has a more direct form of democracy, although it's not exactly as democratic as it looks like in practice. But the voting for many things (and not just for representatives) is there.

I like the idea, but I also think it would be so easy to twist by various interest groups (who do twist politicians in our current systems, they would just do it more directly as democracy becomes more direct) that I'm not sure the end result would really be any better. I agree our current democracies are flawed, but I don't know exactly what we should do. Probably we should start growing up first, the rest would possibly follow.

Indeed  I would like to think it would be much harder for a special interest group to sway the views of millions of people compared to just a handful in power, but reality is, it probably wouldn’t be :'(

They could just run ads day in, day out on contentious issues to swing things in their favour.

We might have to go after big media to fix that issue once we have fixed government 

[jonpaul]

According to the founders and US constution, the United States is NOT a "democracy" where 50.00001% of a vote can dictate to the other half.

US IS A REPUBLIC!

Jon

[vk6zgo]

According to the founders and US constution, the United States is NOT a "democracy" where 50.00001% of a vote can dictate to the other half.

US IS A REPUBLIC!

Jon

A Republic can be a democracy in the modern sense of the word, (really, "Representative democracies) or a communist or fascist dictatorship, or almost anything else.

Both Democracy & Republic just indicate that the country is governed by the people, as distinct from an absolute Monarchy.
Neither specify how many members of the public, or which ones.

Neither the Ancient Greek Democracy nor the Roman Republic would pass muster as democracies in the modern sense.

More importantly, the USA is a Federation with all the inherent compromises that brings.

[themadhippy]

usa has a strange type democracy when the choice of around 170 million voters is decided by just 538 people

[TimFox]

At least we don't have one house of our bicameral legislature totally unelected.

[themadhippy]

At least we don't have one house of our bicameral legislature totally unelected.

True enough,and our elected house aint much better when you can gain power with less than 30% of the electorate ,and less than 1% get to chose the replacement  pm mid term.

[TimFox]

If you read the US Constitution, you will find no mention of "democracy", but Article IV, Section 4 reads "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".
At the end of the 18th Century, the word "democracy" seemed to imply the excesses of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror.
Other parts of the main body of the Constitution include (Article I, Section 9): "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States".
Further evolution started with the first ten amendments ("Bill of Rights").
Yes, political history and practice is messy, compared with simpler topics such as quantum mechanics.

[vk6zgo]

At least we don't have one house of our bicameral legislature totally unelected.

True enough,and our elected house aint much better when you can gain power with less than 30% of the electorate ,and less than 1% get to chose the replacement  pm mid term.

It is hard in a representative democracy to safeguard the interests of less populous areas, whilst at the same time, trying to be as representative as you can be.
"Single member electorates" try to achieve the former, but then run into trouble with the latter, as one party may have a very high vote over the whole country, but as it is mostly concentrated in the electorates of very popular members, doesn't count for seats won.

In Australia, as a Federation, we have the additional complication of compromises that became necessary at the time of Federation.
As an attempt at  sorting out such problems, we have both Compulsory Voting  & "Preferential Voting".
The former is self explanatory, but the latter seems to bamboozle some people.

Preferential voting is an attempt to avoid the situation where , say, 34 % of the electorate vote for candidate X, with 33% each, for candidates Y & Z.

With "first past the post" candidate X is the clear winner--all good!
But wait a minute, 66% of the electorate did not want candidate X, so they have no say in the outcome.

With Preferential Voting, if a voter really wants, for example for candidate Y to win, but will accept Z ---"Anything but X!!", they can record a preference for that candidate & put X last.

All quite simple, but along comes Political Parties to screw things up, by issuing "how to vote cards" which show how they would like voters to vote.
They are basically meaningless, as the voter can choose any combination they like.

The media, being in a hurry as always, love to print that "Party A has preferenced Party C above Party A".

People whose head aches if they try to think leap onto these comments & think that, in some magical way, Party A can actually
give the preference votes away to Party C.

They then look at what we call the "primary vote" (the total numbers of votes for each Party throughout the whole country), and scream "Unfair! We should have won!" & advocate a change to "first past the post", which still wouldn't deliver the result they desire.

[Stray Electron]

Switzerland has a more direct form of democracy, although it's not exactly as democratic as it looks like in practice. But the voting for many things (and not just for representatives) is there.

I like the idea, but I also think it would be so easy to twist by various interest groups (who do twist politicians in our current systems, they would just do it more directly as democracy becomes more direct) that I'm not sure the end result would really be any better. I agree our current democracies are flawed, but I don't know exactly what we should do. Probably we should start growing up first, the rest would possibly follow.

   The irony is that the "better" our governments become and the more services they provide, the lazier and dumber the citizens become and then they demand even more from their government!  Examples, Social Security because people won't save, socialized medicine because people won't buy insurance, welfare for those that wouldn't stay in school or learn a trade, even school lunch programs that are now operating 24/7/365.  I hate to say it but a Democracy is a self-defeating system.

[pickle9000]

Politicians are like diapers; they’re changed regularly, and for the same reasons.

That's awesome thank you! 

[Black Phoenix]

CGP Grey some years ago come with a series of video analysis and a way of changing voting systems to a more fair way for everyone involved.

https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE

https://youtu.be/Mky11UJb9AY

https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI

Truth to be told, everyone in every political field will have something to disagree, being because it diminishes their status quo or is still not fair enough for their side.