all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Does anyone want to bet me that this is a terrible idea?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    Using a system that is known for making mistakes to write safety regulations for an area known to require particularly highly specialized knowledge and obsessive attention to detail?

    What could possibly go wrong?

    “We don’t need the perfect rule on XYZ. We don’t even need a very good rule on XYZ,” DoT general counsel Gregory Zerzan said, according to the recent meeting notes obtained by ProPublica. “We want good enough,” he said. “We’re flooding the zone.”

    Holy ineptitude, Batman! I hope he's talking about just making drafts which will then be edited by human experts, but the article is not clear on that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I thought this administration wanted to remove regulations? Seems like an odd brag, no?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
    [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    "Cartoon villians"..

    Seen that term used, before..

    it's appropriate, here.


    Seriously, couldn't crowdsourcing commentary on regs find the bugs in drafts better?

    Not necessarily quicker, but better?

    Because there's actual-experience & actual-thinking going-on?

    UnFSCKing believable..

    I'd be outlawing AI-written regs, not enforcing it..

    AI as bug-detector, linter, editor-comments, certainly, but .. no: you use issue-diagrams for carefully-engineering your regs, you don't let "hallucinations" encode your regs, so you feel more "accomplished".

    Idiocy.

    _ /\ _

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    The AI techbros convinced a bunch of incompetent, fascist idiots that LLMs would enable them to run the government.

  • source