I read the first part of your post assuming you were being sarcastic about people's expectations that every mention of AI must be about a revolutionary technical advance rather than novel applications of existing tech. But I think you're serious - the news isn't "AI has made a big advance", the news is "people are testing the idea that AI might be better at policy decisions than some humans" - and that's interesting.

There is a lot of evidence that many politicians don't have even a ChatGPT-level grasp of public policy, the legal system, or economics, but make up for it by being charming, personable, or subjectively "inspiring". It's fascinating to think about what a GPT would do with all the information that politicians have to work with, and whether that could actually result in more effective political decision making.

Yes, letting ChatGPT call the shots doesn't solve the problem of actually _getting things done_, but that doesn't trivialize the effort to elect a "human being enacting ChatGPT instructions".

As a side note, I smile at the idea that a GPT chatbot is a "simple" thing - how quickly we become inured to incredibly complex technology dressed up to be easily consumable.