4 ms·
It sounds bad, but the alternative is policy makers making decisions out of their arses, so maybe this really is a tool that can improve public management. Pro
by worewood 2y ago
It sounds bad, but the alternative is policy makers making decisions out of their arses, so maybe this really is a tool that can improve public management.
Problem is that the owner of the AI service has power over the model and thus can influence government decisions.
Maybe we should require that government use of AI should be required to use open models only.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> the alternative is policy makers making decisions out of their arses Or, you know, consulting experts.
- graemep 2y agoWhen the politicians consult experts they usually consult experts who give them the answers they want. They get rid of experts (e.g. Professor Nutt) who give them advice they do not like. Sometimes they go to the other extreme and think experts are gods, and do not question the advice, check whether other experts would disagree with it etc.
- ceejayoz 2y agoChatbots excel at giving you the answers you want.
- toasteros 2y agoLLMs literally only tell you what you want to hear. They are Dunning-Krueger machines. Ask it about something you don't know: you'll learn something new. Ask it about something you do know: you'll raise your eyebrow, "huh that's not quite right..."
- graemep 2y agoSounds like the media: Gell-Mann Amnesia more than Dunning-Kreuger?
- rightbyte 2y agoI guess the secretary would look things up in some lexicon otherwise. The main problem is that it is easier to sound competent and less effort to spam. Like, the competence and effort filter is gone.
- dpassens 2y agoIs pulling decisions out of OpenAI's arse really better?
- tim333 2y agoHave you compared OpenAI to the current leader of the free world? >The Globalist Wall Street Journal has no idea what they are doing or saying. They are owned by the polluted thinking of the European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of “screwing” the United States of America... (Truth Social today)
- toasteros 2y agoReally? How have policies been made for the past hundred years without it then? It's completely bonkers that people keep saying stuff like this, virtually implying that we didn't have a functional society before LLMs. LLMs are tools that generate word salads that sound compelling. They are not research aids and they can't help you understand things better than the plethora of tools we already developed over the centuries can. So no, the alternative is policy makers doing what policy makers have always done: research, polling, reading, talking, and more research. Now you'll likely come back and say "but X policy was bad and it was because it was poorly researched". Absolutely! Yes, bad policies exist. Poorly researched policies exist. Poorly implemented policies exist. Good policies researched well also exist. And the bad ones aren't going away because of the magical word generator. Seriously. Stop using LLMs to "help" you do stuff you already know how to do.
- snozolli 2y agoReally? How have policies been made for the past hundred years without it then? In the United States, lobbyists have approached lawmakers with pre-written legislation and pitched it to them. I would rather have lawmakers asking LLMs to explain concepts to them than the absolute mess we had back when a House committee was trying to evaluate SOPA with absolutely zero domain knowledge: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xrrj9Wc2L84 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xrrj9Wc2L84
- toasteros 2y agoThe current administration is using LLMs which are telling them to instruct the NSA not to talk about privilege escalation. I addressed that: bad policies and decisions don't go away just because of LLMs. They will always exist, it's just that now they'll exist at the same time as people gaslighting themselves into believing that LLMs are helping to eliminate them.
- tim333 2y agoHumans in that time gave us WW1, WW2, the great depression etc.