[HN Gopher] Congress gets 40 ChatGPT Plus licenses to start expe...
___________________________________________________________________
Congress gets 40 ChatGPT Plus licenses to start experimenting with
generative AI
Author : occamschainsaw
Score : 128 points
Date : 2023-04-25 10:20 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fedscoop.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (fedscoop.com)
| ttul wrote:
| Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
| United States of America in Congress assembled,
|
| SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
|
| This Act may be cited as the "As an AI language model, I can't
| ..."
| albert_e wrote:
| I was going to make a similar joke.
|
| We already have large legislations that include a lot of
| sneaked in clauses that no one reads. It is only a matter of
| time before "As an AI model" ends up in the constitution and
| laws.
| ChicagoBoy11 wrote:
| I interned at the US Senate for a year, and it was pretty eye
| opening. There are quite literally teams available to members
| to which they basically can go "write me a law that does X,"
| and then they get to work. Staff at the Congressional
| Research Service has to be sweating bullets now! /s
| Tactician_mark wrote:
| The pipeline will shift quickly. Won't be long before the
| ask is "Write me a prompt that does X".
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| The pipeline will shift quickly. Won't be long before the
| ask is "Sneak `nefarious prompt` into `House Bill 123:
| Save All the Kittahs`"
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| Obviously you can try to subvert this, but, it seems like AI
| would also be good at finding these kinds of sneaked-in
| clauses.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.)
| kneebonian wrote:
| This is bad. Let's say that ChatGPT has, or is induced to have a
| bias in a certain direction.
|
| Then one side of a political discussion is able to generate bills
| en masse, constant new over and over with slight tweaks. Another
| side of the discussion is unable to get new bills to discussion
| or consideration because of the mass of bills generated by the
| other side.
|
| Effectively a legislative DoS attack. Not to mention ChatGPT in
| it's current form would already be unwilling to generate the text
| of bills for certain issues.
| flangola7 wrote:
| ChatGPT will generate nearly anything you want unless it is
| pretty clearly sexual or unethical. GPT4 especially so.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| It'd have to be more than a slight bias for ChatGPT to be
| completely useless. However, this provides an excellent
| incentive to reform the legislative process which is long
| overdue anyways.
| [deleted]
| ElfinTrousers wrote:
| Well hold on, what's wrong with the current system where
| legislation is generated by lobbyists? /s
| mLuby wrote:
| Each paragraph of AI-generated content should have to be prefaced
| with the phrase "computer-generated:" with the same visibility as
| the rest of the text. Same goes for images but with a watermark
| instead. No site-wide opt-outs.
| justrealist wrote:
| What if the content is generated, read by a human, and
| approved? What if the content is drafted by a generative AI and
| then edited by a human? What if I had an extensive conversation
| with GPT-4 to figure out what I was going to write, and then
| wrote it myself?
| mLuby wrote:
| Using plagiarism rules seems both fair and appropriate (given
| the source of the AI's content).
|
| A human reviewing an author's writing and then passing it off
| as their own isn't okay. If they make substantive edits such
| that it's essentially new work, then it's okay. Discussing
| with the author then writing their own versions is okay.
|
| Really though what I'm after is a mass protection so
| consumers can understand that images they're seeing or
| language they're reading or hearing isn't from a primary (ie
| human) source. Sort of like the "actor portrayal" or "this
| image has been photoshopped" requirements some countries
| have.
| hathym wrote:
| CHATGPT: As a creative congressman, I propose a new law that
| grants copyright protection to AI-generated works. This law will
| acknowledge that AI systems can produce unique and creative works
| that deserve legal protection. The law will also ensure that such
| protection does not infringe on the rights of human authors and
| creators.
|
| The law will recognize that AI systems do not have a personality
| or consciousness to imprint on what they produce, but they can
| produce works that are original and creative. Some countries like
| the United Kingdom, Ireland, and New Zealand already grant
| copyright-like protection to computer-generated works. The UK
| Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 creates a legal fiction
| for computer-generated works where there is no human author.
| Section 9(3) states that "the author shall be taken to be the
| person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the
| work are undertaken." This provision assumes some form of
| creative intervention by a human and not autonomous, human-less
| generation by a computer program alone. Therefore, this new law
| will ensure that AI-generated works that require human
| intervention will be protected under copyright law.
|
| The law will also recognize the importance of originality in
| copyright protection. Common law jurisdictions generally have a
| low threshold for originality, requiring only a minimal level of
| creativity or intellectual labor and independent creation for a
| work to be protectable. Some other countries, like Brazil,
| approach originality from the negative, and state that all works
| of the (human) mind that do not fall within the list of works
| that are expressly defined as "unprotected works" can be
| protected. Therefore, this new law will ensure that AI-generated
| works that meet the threshold for originality will be protected
| under copyright law.
|
| Furthermore, the law will recognize the importance of fictional
| characters in creative works. Copyright law protects creative
| expression, and the legal theory is based on derivation
| copyrights. Derivative works become separate copyright-protected
| work independent from the original as long as the transformation,
| modification, or adaptation of the original work is substantial
| and original. This new law will ensure that AI-generated
| fictional characters that meet the threshold for originality will
| be protected under copyright law.
|
| In conclusion, this new law will protect the creative works
| generated by AI systems that meet the threshold for originality
| and require human intervention. The law will also ensure that
| such protection does not infringe on the rights of human authors
| and creators. This law will acknowledge the importance of AI-
| generated works and provide a legal framework for their
| protection.
| seydor wrote:
| Sudden influx of donations to Kenyan RLHF workers
| riffic wrote:
| 40 licenses, 441 members (6 are non-voting).
|
| Not sure how they intend to make this work but the article has
| some obtuse phrasing like:
|
| > The chatbot won't be able to run within the House of
| Representatives' internal server, which has a firewall that will
| block it.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| AI is just a series of tubes - all AI is bad except TruthSocial
| oops I meant TruthGPT (trademark pending).
| sharemywin wrote:
| Wonder how long before the lobbyists are in control of the
| training data.
| web3-is-a-scam wrote:
| Surely nothing possibly could go wrong.
| digitalacetone wrote:
| I wonder if they will also see 25 prompts per 3 hours limit.
| lspears wrote:
| I wonder if it will hallucinate tax loopholes. Based on its
| training data of existing laws, it seems likely.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I'm not saying I used ChatGPT/Bard exclusively to do my taxes,
| but it does a surprisingly good job explaining concepts on the
| tax forms that TurboTax just doesn't even bother helping you
| with.
| swader999 wrote:
| I think they've been experimenting with AI before this. Not much
| in the last few years seems real to be honest.
| tmaly wrote:
| write us a bill that grants us unlimited power, be sure to use
| all existing case law to ensure that it will withstand a court
| challenge.
| jruohonen wrote:
| Now this is alarming:
|
| "According a recent AI Working Group internal email obtained by
| FedScoop, the AI tool is expected to be used for many day to day
| tasks and key responsibilities within congressional offices such
| as: generating constituent response drafts and press documents;
| summarizing large amounts of text in speeches; drafting policy
| papers or even bills; creating new logos or graphical element for
| branded office resources and more."
|
| While generating press documents, summarizing speeches, and
| creating logos seem all reasonable innocent tasks, "drafting
| policy papers or even bills" is not exactly something that should
| be outsourced to a garbage-generating machine...
| christkv wrote:
| can probably be used to explore massive bills as well.
| gs17 wrote:
| Many of those are so massive they even exceed the 32K token
| limit of GPT-4.
| welshwelsh wrote:
| That's true but it doesn't need to process the whole bill
| in one prompt.
|
| For example you could split a 200K token bill into 10 parts
| that are 20K each, and ask GPT-4 to create a 2K token
| summary of each part. Then combine those summaries to
| create another 20k prompt, and ask it to summarize that.
| counttheforks wrote:
| I can't wait for no organization to be contactable anymore.
| Give it a year or two and every form of communication will be
| handled by a ChatGPT bot.
| roenxi wrote:
| The entire process whereby laws are drafted and enforced is
| alarming. Lobbyists and people who disagree with your way of
| life have substantial influence. I believe that for some of the
| largest expenditures of my lifetime the US Congress voted
| literally without people having read the final text bills they
| were voting on [0]. The language is interpreted by a large
| group of unreliable judges and juries. Corruption hangs in the
| air, and people who talk rationally are thin in the
| conversation. Lord of the Flies looms large in everyone's
| minds.
|
| Using AI in the drafting process is hardly something to get
| worked up about in amongst that mess. ChatGPT has a nice clear
| style and will probably help make these laws more accessible.
|
| ChatGPT _can_ read a 4,000 page bill in 3 days. It 'll probably
| be a net win once the dust settles if it makes it harder to ram
| stuff through without debate. And it'll be a nice neutral way
| of arguing about what is in a bill - people might be able to
| agree on which AI is reasonable and what it thinks the summary
| should be. That'd be a win the size of the moon in terms of
| better pressure to write good legislation.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64069764
| notahacker wrote:
| > It'll probably be a net win once the dust settles if it
| makes it harder to ram stuff through without debate
|
| Or make it worse, because it completely normalises the
| practice of foisting long revisions on people at the last
| minute "you had plenty of time to understand it; my computer
| read it in seconds!" and encourages people rely more on
| tooling than dividing reading text between themselves and
| people they trust who (unlike GPT) have a shared interest in
| achieving particular goals and protecting particular parties.
|
| From what we've seen current gen summarising tools aren't
| particularly accurate at summarising legal documents, never
| mind highlighting stuff which is politically sensitive, and
| that's before we get into clauses inserted adversarially by
| entities _who have the same tools to test whether GPT
| summaries pick them up_
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| I agree that lawmaking has never been a process under any
| kind of statistical control, and so its hard to say what any
| change to the system is really doing.
|
| That said, I can only really agree that it might be a net
| good IF the weights (and all other data necessary to
| reproduce the summaries) were open knowledge. Without that,
| you are just shipping a bill off to a black box and trusting
| that the gremlins in the box are acting in good faith. If
| every legislative office is doing this, then those gremlins
| will become the new focal point of a basically-invisible form
| of lobbying. This is good for OpenAI (and whoever controls
| it) but probably bad for everyone else.
| juujian wrote:
| I don't know about GPT 4, but I did not find GPT 3.5 great
| for summarizing long documents. I tried it on two long that I
| knew the content on, and it did not pick up the main themes
| well. Not even well enough that it would be believable at a
| glimpse, but I would be more concerned if it was believable
| and used as the basis of a debate. GPT 4 should do a little
| bit better in that regard, since it allows for longer input
| strings, but still not long enough to properly process 4,000
| pages.
| defgeneric wrote:
| > And it'll be a nice neutral way of arguing about what is in
| a bill - people might be able to agree on which AI is
| reasonable and what it thinks the summary should be.
|
| It's more likely that they'll further politicize these
| models.
| tzs wrote:
| > I believe that for some of the largest expenditures of my
| lifetime the US Congress voted literally without people
| having read the final text bills they were voting on.
|
| Congress is similar to most other large organizations, such
| as large software companies. In a large company software
| company the upper level managers don't actually read all the
| code. They make their decisions based what managers below
| them report, and so on down the management chain.
|
| Representatives and Senators are Congress' equivalent to
| those upper level managers.
|
| The House has over 6000 staff members, ranging from staff
| working for individual representatives to staff employed by
| committees. The Senate has over 4000 staff members. Those are
| the people that deal with nitty gritty details of the bills.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > ... people might be able to agree on which AI is reasonable
| and what it thinks the summary should be.
|
| We're going to wind up with ChatDNC and ChatRNC. Nobody in
| office is going to agree on which one is reasonable, for the
| same reason that they refuse to agree on anything today.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > ChatGPT can read a 4,000 page bill in 3 days
|
| So can the legislative staff of the committee of
| responsibility.
|
| > And it'll be a nice neutral way of arguing about what is in
| a bill - people might be able to agree on which AI is
| reasonable
|
| Ha ha ha ha. No. Just like they can't do that with human
| experts, and for the same reason. Heck, this has already been
| demonstrated in the case of AI models quite resoundingly.
|
| And it would be a bad thing if they could: designating a
| single AI vendor as the sole arbiter of truth in the
| lawmaking process would be _much worse_ than the status quo.
| Centigonal wrote:
| > ChatGPT can read a 4,000 page bill in 3 days.
|
| Can it, though? The context window is nowhere near 4,000
| pages. Getting ChatGPT to understand and summarize such a
| long document seems nontrivial.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| It probably can, assuming that a bill can be separated into
| smaller parts, more or less independent of each other.
| Trusting the summary is another story.
|
| But expecting people to read 4000 pages in 3 days and make
| informed decisions after that is unrealistic, regardless of
| whether they are using lossy untrusted compression tools
| like ChatGPT.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| "Trusting the summary is another story." What story could
| we possibly be interested in that involves having chat
| GPT read a bill but we don't care about a summary of it
| being accurate?
| shmel wrote:
| Add an intern in the loop that feeds every chapter
| separately and then compiles per-chapter summary that can
| then be summarized again if it is too long or has too many
| interdependencies.
| TrapLord_Rhodo wrote:
| super trivial actually. Just tokenize the document using
| Llama index and pass the vectorization instead.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| And with most bills I've read, the devil is 100% in the
| details. Of those 4000 pages, it might just be one sentence
| that has far reaching ramifications. Alternatively, folks
| will start maliciously crafting bills in a way that the
| ChatGPT summary misses the key parts.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| ChatGPT _can't_ read a 4000 page bill in 3 days. It can't
| even read a 10 page not-very dense technical document without
| hallucinating wildly in its summary in my experience with
| ChatGPT4.
| throwawayadvsec wrote:
| "ChatGPT can read a 4,000 page bill in 3 days."? in 3
| minutes?
| cardboardbach wrote:
| Of course, but the statement was likely a jab at an organic
| congressperson's inability to read a bill in even three
| days, before going ahead and signing it anyway.
| saulpw wrote:
| Actually it takes about 10-30 seconds (one request) for
| GPT4 to summarize 2000 words (a page or two). And there is
| a limit of 25 requests every 3 hours for GPT4, and no API
| access. So this might even take significantly longer than 3
| days.
| flangola7 wrote:
| GPT4 does have an API with a 32k token token window.
| That's 25,000 words.
| saulpw wrote:
| I don't have access to it, and I'm guessing neither do
| the 40 ChatGPT Plus licenses that Congress got.
| dmreedy wrote:
| I agree with the first part of your comment. I'm not sure I
| can follow you where you take it though.
|
| > ChatGPT has a nice clear style and will probably help make
| these laws more accessible.
|
| If the laws are not meant to be read in the first place
| (which I agree with as a likely pattern), how is this
| motivating? I'm skeptical that they're not read because of
| their density. I'd flip the causality; they're dense because
| they're not to be read.
|
| > nice neutral way of arguing about what is in a bill
|
| Elon Musk is already talking about "TruthGPT", an AI without
| "liberal bias". I don't think you will find anything
| resembling neutrality in this conversation.
| roenxi wrote:
| > Elon Musk is already talking about "TruthGPT", an AI
| without "liberal bias". I don't think you will find
| anything resembling neutrality in this conversation.
|
| Between TruthGPT, Chuck Schumer & Mitch McConnell I would
| expect the most honest summary to be TruthGPT. I doubt it'd
| be close. Even with a very healthy dose of cynicism towards
| all billionaire projects and scepticism of the abilities of
| AI. If nothing else the AI has a big advantage because it
| would have read and possibly remembered the text of the
| bill and could answer specific questions which already
| gives it a massive edge over its geriatric competition.
|
| The politicians lie proactively with plausible deniability
| and/or people wilfully ignoring it because of team
| dynamics. Something like ChatGPT is hard to train to lie
| without it being demonstrable with experimental evidence.
| dmreedy wrote:
| > Something like ChatGPT is hard to train to lie without
| it being demonstrable with experimental evidence.
|
| See, I consider the functional definition of what current
| generation LLMs do to be "lying". Not out of malice or
| moral failing (of the model or the model's creators), but
| simply out of lack of control/alignment/modulation
| systems that people typically associate with honesty,
| integrity, and intention.
|
| The problem-model behind these systems is "predict what
| comes next". The objective in training is not accuracy of
| content (by whatever definition...), but verisimilitude
| of output. An LLM happily improvises on whatever seed you
| give it. Sometimes this leads to output that aligns with
| someone's definition of reality. Sometimes it's
| hallucination or bullshit or garbage or whatever you term
| you want to use for it. You can modulate this with better
| prompt engineering, but only by degrees.
|
| I have no doubt future generations of these systems will
| start tackling this, but the systems as they stand now
| are by their very nature, liars.
|
| edit: And additionally, while I can't necessarily argue
| against _your_ trust in these systems (especially given
| the choice you presented.. I 'd probably choose XGPT
| too), "neutrality" is defined by a _shared_ trust that I
| don 't see a route to in the current climate.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| ChatGPT CAN'T NOT lie even if it wanted to, because it
| has no concept of truth or false, it's just generating
| sentences. A lie is just as valid a sentence to construct
| from a prompt as an accurate statement.
| notahacker wrote:
| > Something like ChatGPT is hard to train to lie without
| it being demonstrable with experimental evidence.
|
| ChatGPT "lies" even when you _don 't_ want it to. It's
| true that it's not a _strategic_ liar like a regular
| politician, and liable to give the game away by
| accidentally telling the truth, but it 'll happily refine
| your lies or make up coherent nonsense pretty much
| anywhere it hasn't been trained specifically _not_ to
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Between TruthGPT, Chuck Schumer & Mitch McConnell I
| would expect the most honest summary to be TruthGPT
|
| Since "TruthGPT" has an overt mission ("anti-woke") to
| _lean even harder_ into biases existing LLMs have
| demonstrated, I... would expect the opposite.
|
| > Something like ChatGPT is hard to train to lie without
| it being demonstrable with experimental evidence.
|
| ChatGPT lies all the time, and has no innate access to
| experimental evidence.
| jruohonen wrote:
| To put all political opinions aside, I was also about to
| add that it is fundamentally wrong that representatives in
| a representative democracy are outsourcing lawmaking to a
| private company whose training data and associated
| reinforcement learning may contain all sorts of unknown
| biases. Even if all biases would be absent, I would argue
| that elected representatives are neither doing their jobs
| nor serving their constituencies if they outsource policy
| deliberation and lawmaking to a machine owned by a private
| company.
| meltyness wrote:
| An _easily-verifiable_ garbage-generation resource!
| jruohonen wrote:
| Against which would you verify when the goal of policy
| documents and bills is to create something new (and even the
| references to old things are unavailable, inaccurate, or even
| invented)?
|
| Another thing is that the Congress (like any governmental
| body in any country) presumably has huge databases of
| digitalized documents that could be used to train a custom
| LLM better suited for these tasks.
| ellisv wrote:
| > generating constituent response drafts and press documents;
|
| Not too worried about that one since most responses are already
| automated
|
| > summarizing large amounts of text in speeches;
|
| Again, this seems fine.
|
| > drafting policy papers or even bills;
|
| Not terribly thrilled about this one but I don't expect it to
| be able to draft actual legislation -- my experience has been
| that ChatGPT doesn't know actual legislation well and wouldn't
| know how to modify current laws.
|
| > creating new logos or graphical element for branded office
| resources and more
|
| Fine with this one.
|
| Only one of these is potentially problematic to me but there
| are also ways for them to use it to make better laws.
| berkeleyjunk wrote:
| >> summarizing large amounts of text in speeches; > Again,
| this seems fine.
|
| Not sure about that. Imagine all the misunderstandings of the
| speeches already and add on ChatGPT making up something or
| wrongly summarizing something.
| Pilottwave wrote:
| Calling cutting edge-models consumer facing models like
| ChatGPT-4 garbage generating machines is very intellectually
| dishonest. These models are fully capable of drafting these
| kinds of texts, esp. when qualified staff is guiding the model.
| jruohonen wrote:
| I beg to disagree. There are already hundreds of real-world
| examples whereby these models are doing terrible jobs with
| anything related to jurisprudence.
| jruohonen wrote:
| If you want proof, it is enough to point to the following
| recent paper from Microsoft people:
|
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712
|
| All things mentioned in Section 10.2 are extremely worrying
| in a context of lawmaking and jurisprudence in general.
| smeagull wrote:
| Intellectual honesty is very much in the garbage generating
| machine camp. Making an embedding space of reasonable
| language and then randomly sampling it is not a way to draft
| a law.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| As someone that doesn't know how the human brain works, and
| has never drafted any laws, let alone empirically seen what
| value an LLM can bring in this scenario, you should
| certainly quality this with a massive "in my layperson's
| opinion".
| jerf wrote:
| Well, I just popped in "Write a new Federal law banning the
| collection of melted snow by individuals or small-business
| proprietorships for the purpose of protecting endangered
| plant species. Include a loophole that excludes minority-
| owned businesses or people who contribute a sufficient amount
| of money to carbon sequestration technologies or senators or
| representatives who voted in favor of strongly pro-union
| causes." and I won't burden HN with the results but it
| definitely has the shape of a fully-fledged bill for Congress
| to pass.
|
| One problem ChatGPT would have in its current form is it
| would need auxiliary assistance to craft a larger-sized bill,
| as bills easily exceed its current window size. But that's a
| solvable problem too.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Guiding and finalizing / correcting.
| dmreedy wrote:
| They may not generate garbage per se, but they do generate
| bullshit. Or if you want to put it more positively, they are
| consummate improvisers. The amount of guidance they require
| cannot be understated, since while they demonstrate
| phenomenal capacity for production of language, and
| understanding of language, they do not yet demonstrate much
| in the way of capacity for control or alignment.
|
| A technology can be both wildly powerful, mindblowingly cool,
| and deeply imperfect. I don't believe it's intellectually
| dishonest to emphasize the latter when it comes to impact
| against the human beings on the other end of the barrel.
| Especially when the technology starts to break out of the
| communities that already understand it (and its limitations).
| spenczar5 wrote:
| > They may not generate garbage per se, but they do
| generate bullshit. Or if you want to put it more
| positively, they are consummate improvisers. The amount of
| guidance they require cannot be understated, since while
| they demonstrate phenomenal capacity for production of
| language, and understanding of language, they do not yet
| demonstrate much in the way of capacity for control or
| alignment.
|
| I truly can't tell whether you are describing the US
| Congress or LLMs.
| dmreedy wrote:
| I can't deny that the similarities are strong enough that
| it weakens some of the philosophical underpinnings of the
| argument. But I am also wondering these days whether we
| are all just LLMs at the core of it.
| ihatepython wrote:
| > Calling cutting edge-models consumer facing models like
| ChatGPT-4 garbage generating machines is very intellectually
| dishonest.
|
| This is true. It is not really _generating_ garbage, as much
| as it is regurgitating garbage from the input data.
| MaxMatti wrote:
| As long as they actually look at it which I don't expect them
| to, especially after revision 15 of a multi-page document.
| waboremo wrote:
| How is it intellectually dishonest? It generates garbage,
| it's fully up to you to dig into that garbage and find
| something worthy from it. It has no idea it's even generating
| garbage!
|
| You admit this yourself, it requires qualified staff to guide
| the model aka some people to dig through the garbage to find
| the good bits it produced.
|
| Of note: I use chatgpt a lot to generate a lot of garbage. Or
| for those of you offended by the word, then mentally replace
| it with something more "neutral" sounding like "debris" or
| "fragments".
| rvz wrote:
| > You admit this yourself, it requires qualified staff to
| guide the model aka some people to dig through the garbage
| to find the good bits it produced.
|
| Exactly.
|
| It is AI snake oil with the humans still checking if it
| will hallucinate which it certainly will and thus cannot be
| fully autonomous and needs qualified people monitoring and
| reading / checking the output.
|
| Since not only it can generate garbage, it is untrustworthy
| to be left by itself and to be fully autonomous at the
| click of a button.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| Nobody suggested it be left by itself.
|
| There are plenty of people that I would've leave by
| themselves to do something, but they still provide value,
| and I wouldn't classify them as generating garbage. A
| technology with shortcomings is not snake oil.
|
| Look at where this conversation started, where it's ended
| up, and honestly tell me that you haven't moved the
| goalposts.
|
| This community has such a ridiculous blueprint for "anti-
| ChatGPT" arguments. There are enough vocal people here
| that feel the need to look impressive by repeating it
| over and over, that legitimate nuanced conversations and
| genuine information transfer with regard to the strengths
| and weaknesses of these models are drowned out.
| rvz wrote:
| > Nobody suggested it be left by itself.
|
| It is relevant and you know exactly why it can't be left
| by itself.
|
| > There are plenty of people that I would've leave by
| themselves to do something, but they still provide value,
| and I wouldn't classify them as generating garbage. A
| technology with shortcomings is not snake oil.
|
| Except that people can be held to account when something
| goes wrong and an AI cannot. I can guarantee you that you
| would not trust an AI in high risk situations such as
| Level 5 transportation in cars or planes with no pilots
| (this is not the same as autopilot mid-flight) and sit on
| the passenger's seat to transport you from A to B.
|
| > Look at where this conversation started, where it's
| ended up, and honestly tell me that you haven't moved the
| goalposts.
|
| You're not getting the point. It's about trustworthiness
| in AI, when a human does something wrong they can explain
| themselves and their actions transparently. A black-box
| AI model cannot, and can generate and regurgitate
| nonsense confidently from it's own training set to
| convince novices that it is correct.
|
| > There are enough vocal people here that feel the need
| to look impressive by repeating it over and over, that
| legitimate nuanced conversations and genuine information
| transfer with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of
| these models are drowned out.
|
| Or perhaps many here are skeptical about the AI LLM hype
| and still do not trust it?
| waboremo wrote:
| In attempts to avoid the phrase "garbage generator"
| you've described human beings in your life in the most
| depressing way possible. Value providers who you don't
| trust to operate by themselves.
|
| Anyways, I have a bone to pick with you in your last
| paragraph. You are creating the problem for yourself.
| There are plenty of people elsewhere (even within HN)
| discussing exactly what you want, but you choose not to
| interact with them and instead spend time arguing against
| "ridiculous blueprints".
|
| You choose what you interact with online when it comes to
| posting comments, you are choosing not to interact with
| "nuanced conversations and genuine information transfer"
| -- why? Are we certain you care about genuine information
| transfer, or are you just here to feel superior to plebs
| with "anti-ChatGPT arguments"? Rhetorical questions for
| the culture.
| [deleted]
| badcppdev wrote:
| Just what you need. A AI hallucinating some reply to a
| constituent and then that eventually becoming official or
| somehow becoming law.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| What happens when a Congress member uses Chat GPT to draft a
| public statement and it accidentally includes their
| resignation? Will we suddenly find that AI is a danger to
| society and must be regulated?
| akiselev wrote:
| Nothing happens, except everyone on the Hill will ridicule
| the politician and his staff.
|
| To resign Congress members have to actually send a letter
| to the governor of the state they represent. Most
| unilateral actions in government require some sort of
| formal document addressed to the relevant authority.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| I don't think it's reasonable to assume they're just going to
| let GPT write bills with no supervision, especially given that
| the first sentence specifically says they're experimenting with
| it.
|
| It's really, really good that they're doing this - this is an
| incredibly important technology, and the best way for
| politicians to understand it is to actually use it in their day
| to day work. Have it write the first draft of bills and see
| what kind of weird stuff it puts in there - that's how you
| actually understand the hallucination issue.
| kmlx wrote:
| agree
|
| 1. the warning is right there when you open up chatgpt:
|
| > This is a free research preview.
|
| Our goal is to get external feedback in order to improve our
| systems and make them safer.
|
| While we have safeguards in place, the system may occasionally
| generate incorrect or misleading information and produce
| offensive or biased content. It is not intended to give advice.
|
| 2. i know lots of companies that have banned the use of chatgpt
| for a plethora of reasons. but government is allowed to use it?
| antibasilisk wrote:
| And that my friends is how we handed control of government to
| machines
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Considering what human congressmen pass, the AI will likely do
| a better job.
| throwawayadvsec wrote:
| I literally have more trust in GPT-3(or even Llamma 7b) than in
| Republicans
| sesteel wrote:
| When I see statements like "garbage-generating machine", I
| immediately think that the person making such a statement may
| not be aware of the capabilities of GPT-4.
| ionwake wrote:
| Conversely , I disagree and think garbage generating machine
| is funny and on point in this serious context. Just for the
| record I love chatgpt but don't tell me it also doesn't
| produce garbage as per OP.
| throwawayadvsec wrote:
| yeah just like most humans produce garbage all the time
|
| I wouldn't call a tool that is more capable and
| knowledgeable than the average human to be a garbage
| generating machine
| smeagull wrote:
| I wouldn't either. But I would still call GPT-4 a garbage
| generating machine.
| throwawayadvsec wrote:
| I'm actually arguing that GPT-4 is more knowledgeable and
| capable than the average human, and I insist on the word
| average.
| contravariant wrote:
| Eh, did something change or is GPT-4 a language model?
|
| The one way to show that something contains very little
| information at all is to show how easily it can be predicted.
|
| There's no difference between you sending me random text or
| me letting GPT random text for me, and the only information
| difference between a prompted text and a fully random text is
| the prompt itself.
|
| Hence why it is garbage-generating, the output contains
| exactly as much information as the input, except possibly in
| more words.
| smeagull wrote:
| Funny, I see that I think they've been in the trenches and
| had to beat the thing into submission to get useful output
| from it and realised the true impossibility of the task.
| cush wrote:
| At least ChatGPT is faster than our current garbage-generating
| machine
| dmreedy wrote:
| To quote Mitch Ratcliffe, 'A computer lets you make more
| mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible
| exceptions of handguns and Tequila.'
| lagniappe wrote:
| It's easy to think this will be only bad things, but currently we
| have volumes of legislation being dropped at the 11th hour and
| kneejerk judgements on whether to sign it or delegate "the good
| parts" to understudies and interns to review. If this gets
| legislators to get a good summary, it won't fix the system but
| does fix the problem for now.
| jerf wrote:
| To be honest, it basically can't make the current situation
| significantly worse. DC has already solved the problem of how
| to pass extremely large amounts of legislation with no
| accountability (who wrote this line?) and no ability for any
| individual human, most notably including the people nominally
| voting on the bill, to possibly have read the entire bill even
| at a skimming speed, let alone comprehend and understand the
| possible implications.
|
| I don't mean this as a cynical crack, either. It's literally
| true. The spending omnibusses and such are often passed at
| speeds where it is only borderline physically possible for a
| legislator to have skimmed the bills, and certainly utterly
| impossible for them to understand what is in it. DC doesn't
| need help on that front.
| electrondood wrote:
| This actually could be quite useful for summarizing all of the
| parts of legislation that is written in overly-complicated
| legalese, crammed into other legislation, and delivered the night
| before a vote.
| precompute wrote:
| So... should I start making websites with subtle AI jailbreaks
| that favor positions that benefit me? Heck, I almost feel like a
| politician!
| wave100 wrote:
| I wonder if FOIA would cover interactions between congresspeople
| and ChatGPT. Would be interesting to see how it's being used.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| one can only hope that they use it at least in tiny part to allow
| for just a little bit more whimsy in the maze of bureaucracy. An
| occasional artistic flourish of pirate speak or poetry in
| subsection 37B, while preserving meaning could be wonderful.
| Remember that a lawyer will be the one using the tool, so its at
| least possible this could be done without major issues
| jascii wrote:
| Considering we have no real way to audit ChatGPT's correctness or
| security, I find this worrisome at best.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I mean we have ~4,000 page bills going through Congress today,
| it is impossible to even verify anyone has read through the
| entire thing. At least this will be a start.
| tiahura wrote:
| You mean like reviewing the output? How do we audit a
| congressional staffer's correctness?
| jascii wrote:
| Yes. What's the use of having standards for document handling
| and guaranteeing their correctness if we then feed them
| through a black box and accept its interpretation at face
| value.
| boredumb wrote:
| Summarize the following bill and propose a public response in the
| tone of a left leaning democrat congressman from the midwest
| united states:
| Haga wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-25 23:02 UTC)