Politician Admits He Used ChatGPT to Generate New Law
He didn’t make a single change to what the chatbot spat out — and the law still passed.
Despite ChatGPT infamously not being able to tell truth from fiction — let alone solve simple math problems — a city in southern Brazil just enacted the country’s first legislation entirely written by the chatbot.
As the Associated Press reports, Porto Alegre city councilman Ramiro Rosário admitted to prompting ChatGPT to craft a proposal aimed at preventing the city from forcing locals to pay for replacing stolen water consumption meters.
According to the report, he didn’t make a single change to what the chatbot spat out — and didn’t even tell the council it was AI-generated in the first place.
But that was very much part of his intention, it seems.
If I had revealed it before, the proposal certainly wouldn’t even have been taken to a vote, RosarÃo told the AP. It would be unfair to the population to run the risk of the project not being approved simply because it was written by artificial intelligence.
Porto Alegre’s council president Hamilton Sossmeier only found out about RosarÃo’s scheme after he bragged about the law passing on social media.
Sossmeier called the action a dangerous precedent in interviews with local media, per the AP.
We can’t help but agree. ChatGPT has repeatedly been shown to have a flawed and tenuous connection to reality. Despite its incredible popularity, it still invents facts with abandon and even comes up with entirely made-up numbers when summarizing data.
Case in point: a lawyer was even caught using the tool to come up with legal briefs after it turned out the cases it was referencing in its output were entirely fabricated.
While RosarÃo used ChatGPT without telling the rest of the council, other lawmakers, including in the US, argue there’s still a time and place for the tech — but only if it’s being used responsibly and transparently.
We want work that is ChatGPT generated to be watermarked, Massachusetts state senator Barry Finegold, who drafted a bill using the chatbot, told the AP. I’m in favor of people using ChatGPT to write bills as long as it’s clear.
Meanwhile, RosarÃo has no regrets.
All the tools we have developed as a civilization can be used for evil and good, he told the AP. That’s why we have to show how it can be used for good.
The incident raises concerns about the potential widespread use of AI-generated content in legislative processes and the need for transparency. While technological advancements like ChatGPT offer opportunities for efficiency and innovation, it is crucial to consider the limitations and potential risks associated with relying solely on AI-generated proposals.
Experts argue that while AI can be a valuable tool, it should not replace human decision-making and critical thinking. AI-generated content should be clearly identified and subject to the same scrutiny and deliberation as any other proposal. Transparency is essential in maintaining public trust and ensuring that policies are based on reliable and accurate information.
As the world grapples with the ever-increasing role of technology in various domains, it becomes imperative to establish guidelines and regulations to govern the ethical and responsible use of AI. The development and deployment of AI systems should prioritize accountability, fairness, and human oversight to prevent misuse and unintended consequences.
The case of Porto Alegre serves as a cautionary tale and emphasizes the need for policymakers to approach AI-generated content with care. It highlights the importance of striking a delicate balance between embracing technological advancements and upholding the principles and values that underpin democratic processes.
As discussions around the use of AI-generated content continue, it is crucial to involve relevant stakeholders, including lawmakers, academics, and technology experts, to develop a comprehensive framework that promotes transparent, responsible, and ethical practices.
In conclusion, while AI-generated content can offer valuable insights and solutions, caution should be exercised when relying solely on such technology for critical decision-making processes. The implications and risks must be carefully evaluated to ensure the integrity and legitimacy of laws and policies enacted.
