this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
126 points (99.2% liked)

Not The Onion

12344 readers
409 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Republican state Rep. Alex Kolodin said he used ChatGPT to write a subsection of House Bill 2394, which tackles AI-related impersonations of people by allowing Arizona residents to legally assert they are not featured in deepfake videos.

“I used it to write the part of the bill that had to do with defining what a deepfake was,” Kolodin told NBC News. “I was really struggling with the technical aspects of how to define what a deepfake was,” he said. “So I thought to myself, ‘Well, why not ask the subject matter expert, ChatGPT?’”

The bill was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Tuesday. The legislation allows Arizona residents to obtain a court order stating the person identified in the deepfake video is not them.

Kolodin said that the portions ChatGPT created were precise.

“In fact, the portion of the bill that ChatGPT wrote was probably one of the least amended portions,” he said.

Hobbs was not aware of the portion of the legislation being authored by ChatGPT.

“I kind of wanted it to be a surprise once the bill got signed,” Kolodin said, noting that it was part of the plan.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The fact he kept the use of an LLM, which are known to provide false information, a secret should be grounds for an immediate removal from office.

[–] ignotum@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

If the output was wrong and he blindly trusted it, then none of the people reviewing it noticed anything, then they should all have been fired.

Sounds more like he had it generate the text, he checked that it was correct, then other people checked it and also couldn't find any issues with it.

Autocorrect also ducks up sometimes, that doesn't mean you should be fired for using it, unless you're too dumb or lazy to proofread it yourself and correct mistakes.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

You assume that someone actively checked that. We know for a fact that legislators routinely don't actually read the bills they approve, and a disturbing amount of the time issues are found after things are signed into law because they didn't actually read the damned things in the first place.

He also claims he asked ChatGPT because he needed the definition of deepfake. So instead of going to any number of dictionaries where definitions are located... He asked an LLM AI that has been proven to provide false information, to generate an answer. And then kept that fact a secret.

The fact he admits that he purposefully kept the ChatGPT use a secret until after it was signed into law proves that he knew it was at least a shady idea. It doesn't matter whether it actually made a difference, that shows a disturbing lack of ethics.

We have apparently evidence that he doesn't know what a dictionary is, or how to find one, even online. And a willingness to use tools he doesn't understand to generate laws everyone will be bound by. From his actions here we have shown a pretty clear lack of proper ceitical thinking and ethics.

[–] Susaga@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

If you can check that it's correct, then you can research the topic well enough to know what should be in it, which means you can just write the damn thing yourself.

They aren't too dumb and lazy to check it, but they are dumb and lazy enough to ask something else to write it for them. That is a highly specific amount of dumb and lazy.

[–] match@pawb.social 2 points 6 months ago

He also apparently could not find a real wctual subject matter expert, so he presumably is not very good at his job.