DOT Plans To Use Google Gemini AI To Write Regulations (propublica.org)
- Reference: 0180660772
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/01/26/1948215/dot-plans-to-use-google-gemini-ai-to-write-regulations
- Source link: https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-artificial-intelligence-google-gemini-transportation-regulations
> The plan was presented to DOT staff last month at a demonstration of AI's "potential to revolutionize the way we draft rulemakings," agency attorney Daniel Cohen wrote to colleagues. The demonstration, Cohen wrote, would showcase "exciting new AI tools available to DOT rule writers to help us do our job better and faster."
>
> Discussion of the plan continued among agency leadership last week, according to meeting notes reviewed by ProPublica. Gregory Zerzan, the agency's general counsel, said at that meeting that President Donald Trump is "very excited about this initiative." Zerzan seemed to suggest that the DOT was at the vanguard of a broader federal effort, calling the department the "point of the spear" and "the first agency that is fully enabled to use AI to draft rules." Zerzan appeared interested mainly in the quantity of regulations that AI could produce, not their quality. "We don't need the perfect rule on XYZ. We don't even need a very good rule on XYZ," he said, according to the meeting notes. "We want good enough." Zerzan added, "We're flooding the zone."
>
> These developments have alarmed some at DOT. The agency's rules touch virtually every facet of transportation safety, including regulations that keep airplanes in the sky, prevent gas pipelines from exploding and stop freight trains carrying toxic chemicals from skidding off the rails. Why, some staffers wondered, would the federal government outsource the writing of such critical standards to a nascent technology notorious for making mistakes? The answer from the plan's boosters is simple: speed. Writing and revising complex federal regulations can take months, sometimes years. But, with DOT's version of Google Gemini, employees could generate a proposed rule in a matter of minutes or even seconds, two DOT staffers who attended the December demonstration remembered the presenter saying.
[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-artificial-intelligence-google-gemini-transportation-regulations
Federal Regulations (Score:5, Informative)
Having had to read federal regulations in my job, I can state with authority that 90% or more of the text is boilerplate. A properly trained LLM would have no problem producing it. The small amount of material that is actually important would have to be part of the prompts in any case. As long as someone bothers to proofread the resulting document, I really do not see that it should be a problem.
Re: Federal Regulations (Score:5, Funny)
This is what an LLM would want us to believe. Youâ(TM)re not fooling anyone, bot
Re:Federal Regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
> As long as someone bothers to proofread the resulting document,
And what are the odds of that? Seriously, lawyers are going to be getting disbarred soon because they don't do that, with repeat offenders who certainly know better. Government employees are even harder to fire.
What, really, are the odds that any human eye will see these new regs before they are implemented?
Re: (Score:2)
> What, really, are the odds that any human eye will see these new regs before they are implemented?
You can always have another AI proofread the output. As an added bonus the DOT can then be made much leaner by firing the employees, as in cut out the middle man. A bit like an AI centipede!
Re: (Score:2)
> A bit like an AI centipede!
And I'm sure we'll get great results from a bunch of AI metaphorically shitting in each others mouths.
LLMs sucked up dictatorial nation's rules as well (Score:2)
Well, that might just fit the Trump administration quite well.
Terminology (Score:2)
> calling the department the "point of the spear"
Or more accurately: "the spout of the slop pail".
Don’t blame me. (Score:2)
“in a matter of seconds.” Gee whiz, with those kind of requirement you can do anything. In just a matter of seconds I could fund socialized medicine, do nothing, stub my toes, or launch all our nukes. If the results don’t matter, what’s the difference? Why do anything at all? Because the only thing this is really about is making sure the rich can get richer the fastest as possible with as little interference from pesky laws and regulations they can manage.
“No, no, no! How da
Can't spell "revolution" without... well, at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
'Zerzan appeared interested mainly in the quantity of regulations that AI could produce, not their quality. "We don't need the perfect rule on XYZ. We don't even need a very good rule on XYZ," he said, according to the meeting notes. "We want good enough." Zerzan added, "We're flooding the zone."'
This is self-satire. "Good enough"? Good enough for what? "Government work"? The point of that joke is that it's not really good enough!
And "We're flooding the zone"? The end of that sentence is "with shit". That's not me editorializing. That's just a fact.
If text requires no thought to write, if it contributes no semantic data, it shouldn't be written in the first place.
The more I hear about this, the more I think that the "AI Revolution" is really just people not knowing how to type.
Re:Can't spell "revolution" without... well, at al (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, when rules are being written thoughtlessly, the fact that you can write them faster is BAD. Everybody KNOWS that, right? Because then you've got tons of thoughless rules. That's bad! That's clearly bad!
AUUAUAAHAAGH!
Re: (Score:3)
I come here to concur on your argument on the thoughtless rules. This is so incredible it has to be an April 1st joke.
The problem isn't even the AI, it is believing that "good enough" and "mere minutes" are a good properties for government work.
The only interpretation I can figure is they hired incompetents who believe the problem of government is ability to draft, because they haven't studied anything useful nor have relevant experience at government agencies. The drafting is the easy part, of course, peop
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to spell it "ARRRGGGGHHH" but your way works just as well. When will the madness end? Either Trump or "AI" or preferably both.
Re: (Score:3)
This should tell you all you need to know about not only Trump administrations view of law and administrative procedure but law in general.
So very very much of it exists not because its good, needed, or even makes sense but for its own sake and to be purposefully vague so that it can be twisted to mean whatever the hell bureaucrats in charge want to mean at any given time.
Honestly no free society should tolerate this. We should create a constitutional amendment that requires fines and penalties vary inverse
I for one welcome (Score:2)
Well now the USA is using AI to write the laws there I think the meat bags there remember the correct way to talk. The phrase you guys need to learn is "I for one welcome our AI overlords".
Attitude scares me (Score:1)
This "full steam ahead damn the consequences" attitude scares me.
Drafting the text is not the hard part (Score:3)
> employees could generate a proposed rule in a matter of minutes or even seconds
Okay, sure, it'll draft some text in minutes. You then have to review it in detail to see if it's actually what you intended, which takes at least an order of magnitude longer. You then have to validate if the idea you came up with in seconds or minutes is actually a good idea. Have you thought about second order effects? Have you considered alternatives? Have other people reviewed the ideas? Are you going to get buy-in from everyone else involved?
If you're not doing those things, then you're just generating low-quality slop which wastes other people's time, or worse, gets rubber stamped and creates a real mess. Just slopping out more regulations faster is not a good goal.
If you DO do those things, then the LLM has helped you shave some time off of a small portion of a much larger process. It's a useful tool for that, but let's be realistic about what the actual gains are.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you're not doing those things, then you're just generating low-quality slop which wastes other people's time, or worse, gets rubber stamped and creates a real mess. Just slopping out more regulations faster is not a good goal.
A good point- and this administration would never do anything like that
Why stop there? (Score:2)
Why don't we just have AI run all of the federal government? At this point it can't do much worse than the dipshits currently in charge...
Re: (Score:2)
Mechahitler might be more competent than Wannabehitler. Careful what you wish for.
What? (Score:2)
Not do it the profitable way and let the lobbyist do it?
On the bright side (Score:2)
No pun intended, but maybe this will allow you to get modern automotive tech like matrix headlights not so many years after everyone else.
Most Stupid Idea, So Far (Score:2)
Might as well use a psudo-random-number generator to come up with randomly written laws.
Re:Not the worst idea (Score:5, Funny)
What's the worst that could happen with a (checks notes) 30% hallucination rate?
Re: Not the worst idea (Score:2)
Just got to ask gemini if it hallucinated! Why do the AI doubters miss the obvious solution!