Nope can't think of anything apart from ha ha ha ha ha

So instead of "computer says no" we'll get "LLM says no" but it won't be a simple no but a 3 page long essay why the citizen's submission can't be processed.

Great times, we can probably just use that essay and a LLM and a prompt like "write a legal statement that states why this breaks the law" and keep their law department and a judge busy for half a year.

They say that recent political events have stripped the Conservative party of its talent, leaving only a bunch of loud empty vessels.

They may be right.

Let's imagine training a model to "spot patterns of criminality to discover culprits quicker than ever". If said model had looked at the conviction data, and was then asked "Did this post office subpostmaster commit fraud?", what do we think it would say?

It would of course conclude, based on the data in its training model, that the subpostmaster was guilty as hell. After all, there are a lot of convictions for similar people...

Being actually intelligent and informed by more than just departmental data, we know that this is likely not the case. But AI is almost as dumb as the average Conservative politician, so will not know the difference between a bias in its data and good data. It will simply reinforce existing biases and failures in the system.

I doubt this will save much money. The models will end up being retrained monthly or weekly to handle bias issues, and that will require people to do it. Employee headcount might drop in some areas but will simply rise in the appeals department to compensate. Or we'll have to spend more in the court system to handle legal challenges that result.

Frankly It's unlikely that there will be real savings, just the usual shuffling of money from one column of the spreadsheet to another. The department heads responsible for some of the columns will claim success, simply because they're ignorant of what's happening in the other columns. And politicians will parrot those claims in ignorance as per usual.

We need a new saying to sum this up.

Perhaps: "You can teach an AI model, but you can't teach the politician that endorsed it."

Dowden's offered nothing to the world in his entire career, and his degree is in Law so I'm going to suggest he knows nothing about AI, but has had some slap up lunches with the likes of Microsoft and Google, who have told him how AI will solve all his problems.

" I believe we can take the worst things about public services, whether that's the time-wasting, form-filling, pencil-pushing, computer-says-no, the mind-numbing-ness of it and the kinds of things that make us want to tear our hair out. We can take those things and we can turn them around with the help of AI

How about not using editable PDFs for your online transactions. That don't give you a clue about errors until you try and send it. Without the time-wasting form-filling most of HM Gov staff would be redundant. In my last dealings with the Department of Health and Social Security (commonly known as the SS). I attended an office where the local operative helpfully printed out my details. I then filled-in such details by pencil on a twenty page form. The said form was then snail-mailed to head-office where another operative typed in back-in again. A whole department dedicated to nothing but printing stuff off and snail-mailing same to head-office.

Just wait until those responsible have their PAs replaced by AI assistants.

The models will field questions and freedom of information requests from MPs, according to the Financial Times.

Is that to say the models [securely-hosted instances of ChatGPT and other open-source LLM models, whatever they may be imagined and eventually exercised to be] will provide MPs with the answers to questions and freedom of information requests fielded to MPs to simply repeat/parrot to the public?

Yes, well, now there's a definite novelty and quite radical fundamental change ..... and not just because of the fact that such questions and freedom of information requests will actually be answered rather than clearly so obviously being avoided as is the usual pathetic self-defeating default deployed by its human counterparts whenever asked for transparency and further clarification on dark and sensitive matters of great private and public interest/importance/consequence.

Bravo! Vive la révolution. One Small Step for AIMachines, One Giant Quantum Communications Leap for ManKind. :-) Poe’s Law Rules :-)

I have this insane idea. Just store all that information on a publicly-visible site with a search tool. Only hide material which is excepted from FOIA. I don't know why I bother to get up in the mornings.

*concerned citizen* Does the department use templates to respond to customers?

*civil serpent* *types into ChatGPT "Does the department use templates to respond to customers?"* *replies* No.

Government has a problem, decides to throw new expensive tech at it to see if it sticks. We've never seen this go wrong before have we?

All I can say is get in there quick boys! There will be a shit load of cash swilling around for a while but don't forget to jump ship before you actually have to deliver anything coz you know it'll be a complete clusterfuck with a public enquiry for icing on top. And keep lots of offline notes blaming whatever minister is support be steering this particular wreck.

Waste of space human talks gibberish he doesn't understand!

The thought that these Ministers would be let anywhere near LLM is laughable as they generally don't know their arse from their elbow having been mostly spoon fed through life.

I have no doubt there is a use for LLM in most walks of life where repetition can be identified and automated but do me a favour.

Imagine the carnage at government offices that face the public when computer says no and there's no recourse, cue broken Johnny cabs all over the shop!

Best use I've seen for LLM is low quality fiction - perfect for giving Non Player Characters in videogames human like conversation.

Anyone who thinks an LLM can "analyse" a document needs a refresher course, if only in what Dunning Kruger means.

I sense that the AI peddlers are just the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Look at the wonderful things I can do, and it's all free today...

Then suddenly the paywall appears, starts rising and you're trapped paying them instead of paying employees. You've got rid of your employees and now you're just an addict with a very expensive habit

Will the AI be required to attend an office?

Oliver Dowden called the technology a potential "silver bullet"

Time for someone to show him [1]the famous Fred Brooks essay . Yes, he mentions AI too. And he wrote it in 1987.

Just because this government has been little more then a series of expensive disasters, whose only benefit has been to show other countries what not to do, is no reason to embark on yet another one, especially at this late stage.

[1] https://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/Outreach/pc204/NoSilverBullet.html

There is no way an "OXYGEN STEALER" is going to allow this.

Are we not forgetting that these people run the country, just look at Brexit, Rwanda and any Gov IT contract for last 25 years?