Republican state Rep. Alex Kolodin says he used the artificial intelligence software to help define a subsection of a bill Gov. Katie Hobbs signed into law.
Shall we trust LM defining legal definitions, deepfake in this case? It seems the state rep. is unable to proof read the model output as he is “really struggling with the technical aspects of how to define what a deepfake was.”
I understand the irony. But can we not pretend they blindly used an output or even generated a full page. It was a specific section to provide a technical definition of “what is a deepfake”.
“I was really struggling with the technical aspects of how to define what a deepfake was. So I thought to myself, ‘Well, why not ask the subject matter expert (i do not agree with that wording, lol) , ChatGPT?’” Kolodin said.
The legislator from Maricopa County said he “uploaded the draft of the bill that I was working on and said, you know, please, please put a subparagraph in with that definition, and it spit out a subparagraph of that definition.”
“There’s also a robust process in the Legislature,” Kolodin continued. “If ChatGPT had effed up some of the language or did something that would have been harmful, I would have spotted it, one of the 10 stakeholder groups that worked on or looked at this bill, the ACLU would have spotted, the broadcasters association would have spotted it, it would have got brought out in committee testimony.”
But Kolodin said that portion of the bill fared better than other parts that were written by humans. “In fact, the portion of the bill that ChatGPT wrote was probably one of the least amended portions,” he said.
I do not agree on his statement that any mistakes made by ai could also be made by humans. The reasoning and errors in reasoning is quite different in my experience but the way chatgpt was used is absolutely fair.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
I understand the irony. But can we not pretend they blindly used an output or even generated a full page. It was a specific section to provide a technical definition of “what is a deepfake”.
“I was really struggling with the technical aspects of how to define what a deepfake was. So I thought to myself, ‘Well, why not ask the subject matter expert (i do not agree with that wording, lol) , ChatGPT?’” Kolodin said.
The legislator from Maricopa County said he “uploaded the draft of the bill that I was working on and said, you know, please, please put a subparagraph in with that definition, and it spit out a subparagraph of that definition.”
“There’s also a robust process in the Legislature,” Kolodin continued. “If ChatGPT had effed up some of the language or did something that would have been harmful, I would have spotted it, one of the 10 stakeholder groups that worked on or looked at this bill, the ACLU would have spotted, the broadcasters association would have spotted it, it would have got brought out in committee testimony.”
But Kolodin said that portion of the bill fared better than other parts that were written by humans. “In fact, the portion of the bill that ChatGPT wrote was probably one of the least amended portions,” he said.
I do not agree on his statement that any mistakes made by ai could also be made by humans. The reasoning and errors in reasoning is quite different in my experience but the way chatgpt was used is absolutely fair.