3 ms·
They're already illegal. The point is that laws are useless without enforcement. There's a wide body of civil law that depends upon the plaintiff to assert th
by nostrademons 2y ago
They're already illegal.
The point is that laws are useless without enforcement. There's a wide body of civil law that depends upon the plaintiff to assert their rights. The government isn't going to go monitoring every private transaction to ensure it conforms to every applicable law. We don't want them to do that - in general the government should stay out of private transactions, that's what makes them private. And the law usually requires multiple attempts and back-and-forths to ensure that everyone has had a chance to rectify the situation before it goes to the court system. Again, this is a good thing.
But one side of the transaction is much more able to put up with convoluted processes and paper trails than the other. A corporation can amortize the cost of the paper trail across many customer interactions and build systems to handle it automatically. It can hire employees to do nothing but sit on the phone, and build delays into business processes that will make most customers give up.
These sort of LLM startups just give the same economies of scale to customers seeking redress. Yes, it'd be easier if the whole process didn't exist - there's an old joke about LLMs generating e-mails to sound longer and more impressive than they need to be, and then another LLM summarizing the e-mail back into one sentence that isn't really what the original person meant. But the problem is that each incentive along the way makes the company better off if they get the customer to go away, while each incentive for the customer makes them better off if they don't go away, and so you get an arms race between them.
- HarryHirsch 2y agoThe other problem is that the government is in on the joke. OSHA in my liberal state is about two people. Civil right claims are capped at 300 kUSD for a large employer. The existing laws are plainly insufficient to claim the rights that the citizens supposedly have. The present state of affairs really undermines government legitimacy.
- danaris 2y agoI think it can be dangerous to view "government" as a monolithic entity in cases like this. So many of our consumer-protection laws are written by a tremendously adversarial system: one side does its level best to get solid, genuinely-effective protections in place, and the other side won't let them happen at all until they're hamstrung almost beyond their ability to function.
- HarryHirsch 2y agoThe study about the influence of the ultra-rich on policy in the US is 10 years old, and matters haven't gotten better since: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... It'd not wrong to view "the government" as something that is run by a small group whose interests are not congruent with the majority of the population, and experience shows this.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y agoAlready illegal yes but in a way that favors the insurance company. For example, if the insurance co claims your appeal needs a peer to peer (your dr talks to their Dr) they currently get to decide on when the talk happens. If your dr can't meet at the exact time slot they want, you lose by default. We could rewrite the law to make the patients actual doctor win by default rather than the insurance doctor who rejects literally thousands of claims per week and hasn't even read the patients history.