Séb Krier @sebkrier
— reposted by CuddlySalmon — saved image
Séb Krier @sebkrier · 13h I've read some recent reports of legislators/policymakers using AI to draft bills. I think it's fine to use language models to generate legislation if you properly steer, review, edit it line by line (though that mostly catches errors of commission rather than omission). But what I'm more concerned with is that models have all sorts of quirks, unintentional preferences, implicit policies, and biases that get weaved into the text. Anything that hasn't been specified or made explicit by the prompter gets filled by the model. Is there a sunset clause? Is the reasonableness standard the right one? Is the scoping mechanism robust? Can provisions by excluded by contract? Is it 'shall' or 'may'? For boilerplate, it might not matter too much and "good enough" will often outweigh the costs of manual specification. But for laws that rarely ever get fixed, we should probably expect far more sophisticated scaffolds than out of the box prompting. Ofc reasonable to wonder what the actual counterfactual is...
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet by Séb Krier discussing risks of legislators/policymakers using LLMs to draft bills: models fill unspecified details with their own implicit quirks and biases (e.g., sunset clauses, reasonableness standards, 'shall' vs 'may'), which matters more for laws that rarely get amended.