“While stealing water consumption meters is illegal, it is ultimately up to the individual to decide if the taxpayers should carry the financial burdern”
It was not like that at all…ChapGPT only wrote the summary points of the ordinance. Basically shortening the main text. “Journalists/fake spreaders” here incremented the story by saying it was the whole thing, and now I’m seeing that it was “secretly” done…Feels like we are playing Broken Telephone these days…
Given the literally millions of (largely pointless) laws on the Brazilian statute book this isn’t likely to go down well with the class of obscenely remunerated officials charged with framing them.
I see no issue if it is reviewed and the text is clear. Just ask yourself: who wrote each law that is in the books today? No one knows, or needs to know it, because it does not matter the author but only the text of the law and what it attempts to achieve.
The article describes it like using chatGPT to write understandable legislation is a bad thing. That feels like a pretty core feature/purpose of chatGPT.
CryptographerOdd9500 says
I think I played this ending in Deus Ex 2000
Bitbatgaming says
I wonder how many more laws are going to pass because they were written or are for chatgpt
lambofgun says
i bet the bill ends with this:
“While stealing water consumption meters is illegal, it is ultimately up to the individual to decide if the taxpayers should carry the financial burdern”
Fake_William_Shatner says
I don’t see this as necessarily a bad thing. If someone of integrity reviews it.
Better than all the ones written by lobbyists and the politicos just sign their names.
ImmediatelyOcelot says
It was not like that at all…ChapGPT only wrote the summary points of the ordinance. Basically shortening the main text. “Journalists/fake spreaders” here incremented the story by saying it was the whole thing, and now I’m seeing that it was “secretly” done…Feels like we are playing Broken Telephone these days…
dazed_and_bamboozled says
Given the literally millions of (largely pointless) laws on the Brazilian statute book this isn’t likely to go down well with the class of obscenely remunerated officials charged with framing them.
pblack476 says
I see no issue if it is reviewed and the text is clear. Just ask yourself: who wrote each law that is in the books today? No one knows, or needs to know it, because it does not matter the author but only the text of the law and what it attempts to achieve.
AppropriateScience71 says
The article describes it like using chatGPT to write understandable legislation is a bad thing. That feels like a pretty core feature/purpose of chatGPT.