Unlike human beings, LLMs have no explicit world model, they're an LLM. Why would a politician be replaced by an LLM? It seems like a highly inappropriate use.
Why would you want humans instead?
Whilst a hypothetical application of a neural network politically may not abuse power for its own gain, that doesn't preclude it from making uninformed decisions, just like being a human being doesn't preclude someone from making poor decisions.
How would constituents hold a neural network accountable?
All kinds of shitty things could be done "because the neural net says so", and that lack of accountability is in and of itself a fundamental problem, especially the lack of human-readable data set as it is stored as tokens, it's only the output that is human-readable, so we wouldn't even be able to tell in what ways it had been manipulated. The ultimate patsy and scapegoat for real human beings to take advantage of.
The above is inherently not a feature of the problems that political systems are intended to solve.
Politics is best-suited to issues of resource contention and coordination that aren't distillable to a clear set of goals that everyone agrees on.
A hypothetical AGI could well be more intelligent, but an LLM lacks all the qualities required to be a politician of any description.
Of course, once word gets out that that's what's going on, it will turn into a contest of which side of an issue can spam the Senator's office harder...
> it will turn into a contest of which side of an issue can spam the Senator's office harder
An LLM wouldn't even be required for analysing sentiment and recurring topics, this is how a lot of brands have handled millions of inbound tweets all these years.
To imply that a senator is just the political equivalent of a customer service agent is disingenuous when they themselves draft and propose legislation et al, and that legislation hopefully comes from a nuanced understanding of what it is that they're targeting, which an LLM wouldn't have.
But I'm cynical enough to think that training an LLM on constituents' comments, and then having it write a senator's speeches, could be effective. The speeches would lack specifics, but the tone would echo the constituents' concerns. That might be good enough to get re-elected. (As I said, I'm cynical. It shows up in me thinking that fine-sounding speeches are likely enough to get a senator re-elected.)
Fine-tuning is like a PR agent teaching someone what sorts of things not to mention on TV even though they may be true.
This paper shows an emergent world model in an LLM that was taught to play otello moves https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2210.13382
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712.pdf This paper discusses (among other things) how a GPT4 model navigated between rooms in a text adventure game and was able to create a map afterward. Literally building a model of the world as it was navigating and drawing a map of that afterwards