Suppose we were to replace the UK House of Commons with an AI system something like ChatGPT but with extra training in law and UK history. We could call it BritGPT. Not a serious proposal because we are still stuck with the old question posed by Juvenal –
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
This is the problem we still have now – voting for political parties hasn’t solved it.
Even so, AI has advanced sufficiently for us to formulate a number of entertaining questions around the use of it for political oversight. It wouldn’t work because Juvenal’s question still applies, but current political oversight is so poor that even tongue-in-cheek speculation is worthwhile if only to highlight the severity of the problem.
BritGPT could be capable of holding simultaneous conversations with any number of UK voters at any time.
BritGPT could be capable of conducting a referendum of UK voters on any issue at any time.
BritGPT could be more dispassionately intelligent and informed than N where N is any member of the Cabinet, any member of the House of Commons, any Civil Servant or any official committee.
It wouldn’t work, but that’s not the point. The point is to speculate and take it from there. Could BritGPT be more dispassionately intelligent than Ed Miliband for example? Or Rachel Reeves, or…
BritGPT could be capable of conducting a referendum of UK voters on any issue at any time.
BritGPT could be more dispassionately intelligent and informed than N where N is any member of the Cabinet, any member of the House of Commons, any Civil Servant or any official committee.
It wouldn’t work, but that’s not the point. The point is to speculate and take it from there. Could BritGPT be more dispassionately intelligent than Ed Miliband for example? Or Rachel Reeves, or…
5 comments:
I cannot help but think that Bliar's devilish plan was to manufacture a counter-force to the will and power of both the Government and Parliament by creating the Supreme Court which could re-interpret any rules in accordance with 'International Law' (e.g. ECHR) and declare any new laws passed by parliament 'illegal'. This would be coupled with the creation of a litany of quango's run at arms reach from Minsiter's, who would be unable to counteract their edicts. So far, on Net Zero, Immigration and Sentencing I believe I am right.
Felipe - I think you are right, undermining Parliament in favour of international law and international elites seemed to be his preferred approach. He's done well out of it too.
I saw a good example this very morning of how advanced AI has become. AI now does the minutes of meetings which have been recorded on Zoom where she works. These are important meetings, with lots of forceful characters and oddballs and rambling impassioned discussions. She says the minutes are far better than anything the secretary ever produced. Concise, but relevant and nuanced. That's quite a feat.
It occurs to me that AI usually dodges around those "big questions" that split disciplines. Keynesian economics verse monetarism, for example, and free will versus determinism in philosophy. But what would real state of the art AI do if directly questioned? Has it been questioned? God help us, what if the current Government are getting it right?
Sam - yes, AI seems to be particularly good at concise, orderly summaries. It's effect on the "big questions" could be one of the most interesting aspects because of its ability to summarise.
The possible effect of AI on politics is even more interesting, again because of its ability to generate concise summaries as this is just what most politicians wish to avoid.
I think you're absolutely right. What cheers me up is Trump proving that with sufficient will power things can be undone.
Post a Comment