3 ms·
This seems like a pretty big win, but could have some unintended side effects. Writing a summary of a bill is great to glean it's purpose at a high level. Howev
by darkwizard42 3y ago
This seems like a pretty big win, but could have some unintended side effects. Writing a summary of a bill is great to glean it's purpose at a high level. However, this isn't enough to make a decision, a bill could have hundreds of lines of text with real legal enforceable effect on citizen's rights. Every one of those lines is important so while this MIGHT help summarize all the "legalese" I'm not sure it will help us get simpler, more straightforward legislation.
On the positive side it could lead to people who never read bills to actually get some sort of summary they can read quickly. Caveat: I don't think it is fun or interesting read a 500-page farm bill, but also that is their job, so they have to do it or pass simpler bills.
On the negative side, it could lead to further crap being shoved into bills which lobbyists know won't be picked up by an AI-driven "bill-explainer" product.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Writing a summary of a bill is great to glean it's purpose at a high level. However, this isn't enough to make a decision Staff summaries are a major driver of decisions on bills as it is. OTOH, ChatGPT is notoriously bad in any serious legal analysis related task—fast, yes, but quite often outrageously wrong in ways that are very good at convincing non-experts and might often also convince experts if they didn't do the same work (it won’t fool experts on the toy problems it fails, but where its analyzing a large bill that the expert hasn’t also fully analyzed, it may or may not be obvious that the LLM is hallucinating the premise underlying its analysis.)