you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 159 points 2 months ago (23 children)

Wouldn’t senators have access to actual experts who, unlike ChatGPT, would be correct close to 100% of the time?

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] [S] 75 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah but that would require effort and why not shake the magic box and see what falls out instead?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Not only effort, but money.

    There's also the possibility that an actual expert will tell you stuff you don't want to hear. GPT will lead you down whatever path you're already on like a hotdog hanging from a stick leads a dog.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Every senator and their staff are constantly orbited by lobbyist "experts" offering to write new laws for them. Actual experts are working at institutions, and are not taking senators to expensive dinners by helicopter and limousine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago

    A senator could get an actual expert on a phone call in minutes if they wanted. Fucking no-name YouTubers are able to talk to experts all the time. It’s not hard! But I am guessing you are more referring to the dinners part. It really needs to be illegal to give elected officials anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    There used to be whole ass boards appointments for this, like usa had the Office of Technology Assessment working for Congress, where they paid various experts from various fields to come in and review stuff and give advice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    It's a mix, but yes. The oil companies are very interested in making sure the "experts" are theirs.

    ChatGPT might be better, depending on how often he "corrects" it.

    Also a future issue of how much influence these companies have. I hear NYT is already targeting ads at AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    All the "experts in Medicare/ Medicaid" in DC are payed shills of the health insurance industry recommending they both be dissolved or privatized.

    Honestly chatgpt might be better as it does have a tendency to "both sides" political topics. Of course you can inject your own biases in the question and chatgpt will usually agree with you, but it'll at least sometimes give you pushback which an insurance lobbyist will never do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago

    Senators are also inundated with biased sources, I imagine tuberville has been in an echo chamber for his entire life. A basic AI response might actually be more nuanced and honest.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    Lmao. Your unflinting biological bias is hilarious. Even with the qualifier that is absurd

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    You’re right that it’s nowhere near 100% like I suggested. But ya, I wear that bias with pride.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    I get your bias, but in this instance the human experts he'd be listening to would be health insurance lobbyists, not people who care about others' health. ChatGPT, which is obviously incapable of feeling compassion, may very well have more compassion for human life compared to those.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that he’d be listening to only lobbyists. Theoretically, one could surround themselves with a diverse group of actual experts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments