Bold. Do we have sufficient confidence in AI led anything at scale, for extended durations and across crises of different kinds, to feel comfortable with how th

Bold. Do we have sufficient confidence in AI led anything at scale, for extended durations and across crises of different kinds, to feel comfortable with how this goes? Personally, I doubt it. PRK (purely as an example) had a 4 year lag from FDA approval (1995) to acceptance in the USAF (1999) -So a single functional change which itself underwent MASSIVE testing at scale, across cohorts to get FDA approval had a delay to adoption inside a government strategic interest. We haven't even begun to do anything remotely like FDA pre-acceptance trials for AI assisted government. This isn't a space to do "move fast and break things" and I would think there is no mandate for this, nor even a legal basis to do this, and abrogate functional responsibility this way. I scent many fine lawsuits. I suggest that even the current SCOTUS would be wary of machine generated outcomes applied to the state: After all, their own existence depends on the criterion of choice they display, interpreting laws and the constitution. I would be surprised if they really felt the AI interpretations of law exceeded theirs, purely on selfish grounds. One might as well suggest the senate and house could be replaced by AI. Or, Musk himself.