Elon's AI will summarize bills so congress can't play their favorite game anymore

[128]

[Polaris]

Unfortunately, I highly doubt that it will make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

[NitrogenWidget]

Unfortunately, I highly doubt that it will make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

yep.
you see the usual chit-libs regularly defending bills that don't even do what the dems claim they do.
brb "secure the border" bill. 10% of the bill actually goes towards the border the rest goes to other countries.
chit-libs defend it tooth and nail and pretend it was an actual bill needed to secure our border which is odd because they have made it clear they want our border wide open.

grok is a decent name for an AI though.
i wonder when it summarizes if it lists which earmark belongs to which politician.

[Weightaholic]

Given that current "AI", in a lot of cases just makes **** up out of whole cloth, sure thing Elon.

[Derplington]

Your typical Republican voter (and misc R&Per) doesn't care about what's in a bill. All they care about is whether Trump says it is good or not.

[foXs]

Unfortunately, I highly doubt that it will make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

It might not, but it is a good start. You have to give props to the guy and his desire to bring balance and highlight government corruption.

We need more people like him.

[Maestro]

Given that current "AI", in a lot of cases just makes **** up out of whole cloth, sure thing Elon.

It only does that when you tell it to make up something from scratch (ex; Write a 5 page paper on the Roman Empire), and even then, that was GPT 3.0. I think the premium 4.0 is much better.

If youre copy+pasting a bill (essentially giving it the source to pull from) it will only pull from that material.

[Maestro]

Unfortunately, I highly doubt that it will make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

The concept targets a very specific audience. People into politics are usually older (boomers) and may not be tech savvy enough to know how to use grok. On the other hand, you have kids that may use grok everyday, but not give two chits about using it to summarize legislative bills that come from the House floor.

[Latinowarrior3]

If it works that would be nice. Wouldn’t make a difference though. Only political people would read the breakdowns and they’d try really hard to show others and eventually give up once they realize how stupid (and fat) most people are.

[AlfBundy]

Your typical Republican voter (and misc R&Per) doesn't care about what's in a bill. All they care about is whether Trump says it is good or not.

[Polaris]

If it works that would be nice. Wouldn’t make a difference though. Only political people would read the breakdowns and they’d try really hard to show others and eventually give up once they realize how stupid (and fat) most people are.

Yep.

[Bodhy]

I dunno. AI is extremely useful for things like coding for obvious reasons, but I think it would still suck the big one when it comes to law. Because law is context-based reasoning. Have you read the debates between AI proponents and their detractors like John Searle, and Hubert Dreyfus etc, OP?


AI is notoriously bad at context-based reasoning. It's a serious and ongoing problem and not much in the way of a solution. Plus, AI in law has just invented citations to case law, made up names of parties, and fact patterns to support their made up assertions.

The key thing, is it doesn't understand.

I wouldn't count on it to do the job of case summary or statute analysis just yet, let alone functioning as a real lawyer.

[Polaris]

I dunno. AI is extremely useful for things like coding for obvious reasons, but I think it would still suck the big one when it comes to law. Because law is context-based reasoning. Have you read the debates between AI proponents and their detractors like John Searle, and Hubert Dreyfus etc, OP?


AI is notoriously bad at context-based reasoning. It's a serious and ongoing problem and not much in the way of a solution. Plus, AI in law has just invented citations to case law, made up names of parties, and fact patterns to support their made up assertions.

The key thing, is it doesn't understand.

I wouldn't count on it to do the job of case summary or statute analysis just yet, let alone functioning as a real lawyer.

Simply giving the Cliff Notes/Summarizing of a Bill doesn't necessarily = serious "analysis" or require a high level of "context based reasoning".

It seems like you're just trying to obfuscate (or, like usual, trying to appear more intelligent than you are).

[Bodhy]

Simply giving the Cliff Notes/Summarizing of a Bill doesn't necessarily = serious "analysis" or require a high level of "context based reasoning".

It seems like you're just trying to obfuscate (or, like usual, trying to appear more intelligent than you are).

No.

[NYPat]

yep.
you see the usual chit-libs regularly defending bills that don't even do what the dems claim they do.
brb "secure the border" bill. 10% of the bill actually goes towards the border the rest goes to other countries.
chit-libs defend it tooth and nail and pretend it was an actual bill needed to secure our border which is odd because they have made it clear they want our border wide open.

grok is a decent name for an AI though.
i wonder when it summarizes if it lists which earmark belongs to which politician.

Lmao literally every bill has pork. Only people who never paid attention to politics before their orange cult leader conman came to town think these bills aren't normal.

So let me repeat.. the BIPARTISAN border bill IS a BORDER bill. Just because you don't like it (because daddy told you not to) doesn't mean it isn't.

[goody1]

Lmao literally every bill has pork. Only people who never paid attention to politics before their orange cult leader conman came to town think these bills aren't normal.

So let me repeat.. the BIPARTISAN border bill IS a BORDER bill. Just because you don't like it (because daddy told you not to) doesn't mean it isn't.

How much of said bill goes to protecting our border?

[Duckliver]

Lmao literally every bill has pork. Only people who never paid attention to politics before their orange cult leader conman came to town think these bills aren't normal.

So let me repeat.. the BIPARTISAN border bill IS a BORDER bill. Just because you don't like it (because daddy told you not to) doesn't mean it isn't.

The difference is the amount of pork going into it these days because people are numb and don’t care.

When thousand page spending bills get passed quicker then they could be humanly read, it’s a fukking problem and everyone should have questions.

The only time it becomes an issue is close to election season when a party tries for frame it as the other party is wasting money for votes. When they aren’t chasing votes they just all spend cash as freely as they want.

There needs to be a way to hold politicians responsible for the fiduciary duty they have to taxpayers.

[leafs43]

In before "Elon's AI is racist and antisemitic and a threat to democracy"

[goody1]

The difference is the amount of pork going into it these days because people are numb and don’t care.

When thousand page spending bills get passed quicker then they could be humanly read, it’s a fukking problem and everyone should have questions.

The only time it becomes an issue is close to election season when a party tries for frame it as the other party is wasting money for votes. When they aren’t chasing votes they just all spend cash as freely as they want.

There needs to be a way to hold politicians responsible for the fiduciary duty they have to taxpayers.

Well said

[BullittEV]

In a thread about using AI for good to summarize long-winded, chitty bills and of course the leftists are hostile and screeching about Trump.

[InPhase]

I dunno. AI is extremely useful for things like coding for obvious reasons, but I think it would still suck the big one when it comes to law. Because law is context-based reasoning. Have you read the debates between AI proponents and their detractors like John Searle, and Hubert Dreyfus etc, OP?


AI is notoriously bad at context-based reasoning. It's a serious and ongoing problem and not much in the way of a solution. Plus, AI in law has just invented citations to case law, made up names of parties, and fact patterns to support their made up assertions.

The key thing, is it doesn't understand.

I wouldn't count on it to do the job of case summary or statute analysis just yet, let alone functioning as a real lawyer.

I wouldn't count on you doing a job, or be a functioning human either, you autistic clown.