Given that LLMs, for instance, are all about creating synthetic media, I don’t know how this last goal can be reconciled with the others.
This document reads like a trade group lobbying the government, not like the government looking out for the interests of its people.
With regards to LLM content in the legal system, law firms can use LLMs in the same way an experienced attorney uses a junior attorney to write a first pass. The problem lies when the first pass is sent directly to court without any review (either for sound legal theory or citation of cases which either don’t exist or support something other than the claim).
Yep, it was.
I wholly agree that the document feels less guided by the public interest rather than by various business interests. Yet that last goal is in a kind of weird spot. It feels like something that was appended to the plan and not really related to the other goals — if anything, contrary to them.
That becomes clear when we read the PDF with the details of the Action Plan. There, we learn that to “Combat Synthetic Media in the Legal System” means to fight deepfakes and fake evidence. How exactly that’s going to be done while simultaneously pushing AI everywhere is unclear.
China is struggling with general economy issues (young degree holder unemployment, unrolling the real estate crisis, the demographic time bomb from the One Child policy). But they are much better posed to solve their energy constraint problems than the US is. Our grid will take MUCH more work to upgrade to support sufficient numbers of AI data centers.
Junior attorneys would not produce a first pass that cites and quotes nonexistent cases or cite real cases that don’t match what it quotes.
The experienced attorney is going to have to do way more work to use that first draft from an LLM then they would to use a first draft from an actual human junior attorney.
Considering how advanced China is, maybe it's time we stop talking about the "AI race" and start talking about the "unemployment race." The US government should be asking: how is China tackling unemployment in the age of automation and AI? What are they doing to protect people from losing their jobs?
From what I've seen, they're offering state benefits, reinforcing unemployment insurance, expanding technical education, and investing in new industries to create jobs.
So what's the US doing apart from writing PDFs? It's up to them to decide what the next chapter is going to be. One thing is for sure, China is already writing theirs.
Social discomfort can lead to long-term instability if nothing is done about it. When people are pushed out of the system, it can trigger protests, strikes, and divisions within society. This is going to be America's (North and South) biggest challenge.
If you take their words for it, a large percentage of Trump voters cite employment competition for their complaints with immigration and complain about NAFTA and corporate offshoring of jobs as their rationale for breaking many US institutions + scrambling the Democratic and Republican parties.
Using the legal equivalent of Deep Research is what law firms should be using, not the cheapest model a available with no model guardrails.
There's an idea. This government is just a propaganda machine for its head honcho.
Combat Synthetic Media in the Legal System One risk of AI that has become apparent to many Americans is malicious deepfakes, whether they be audio recordings, videos, or photos. While President Trump has already signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which was championed by First Lady Melania Trump and intended to protect against sexually explicit, non-consensual deepfakes, additional action is needed. 19 In particular, AI-generated media may present novel challenges to the legal system. For example, fake evidence could be used to attempt to deny justice to both plaintiffs and defendants. The Administration must give the courts and law enforcement the tools they need to overcome these new challenges. Recommended Policy Actions • Led by NIST at DOC, consider developing NIST’s Guardians of Forensic Evidence deepfake evaluation program into a formal guideline and a companion voluntary forensic benchmark.20 • Led by the Department of Justice (DOJ), issue guidance to agencies that engage in adjudications to explore adopting a deepfake standard similar to the proposed Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901(c) under consideration by the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules. • Led by DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy, file formal comments on any proposed deepfake- related additions to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
I think that's probably a bad idea, personally
> An intelligence without emotions would be a psychopath. Empathy is an emotion
"Empathy is an emotion" was, in fact, an essential part of your syllogism.
Regardless, we're potentially talking about something sufficiently inhuman that the term "psychopath" can no longer apply. If there was an ant colony that was somehow smart enough build and operate machinery or whatever and casually bulldozed people and their homes, would you call it a "psychopath", or just skip that and call it "terrifying"?
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscien...
That isn't true, people do things for others all the time any form of explicit or implicit compensation, they don't even believe in a God so not even that, they still help others for no gain.
We can program an AI to be exactly like that, just being happy from helping others.
But if you believe humans are all that selfish then you are a very sad individual, but you are still wrong. Most humans are very much capable of performing fully selfless acts without being stupid.
It seems that you missed the first sentence that GP wrote from which the one you quoted follows.
Not all humans are perfectly selfish, so it should be possible to make an AI that isn't selfish either.
Nobody said that. What I was pointing out to you is that GP said that not having emotions is worse than having them since intelligent actors need some form of compensation to do any work. Thus having no emotions, according to GP, it would be impossible to motivate that actor to do anything. Your response is to just give it emotions and thus is irrelevant to the discussion here.
The entire thought experiment about the paperclip maximizer, in fact most AI threat scenarios is focused on this problem: that we produce something so alien that it executes it's goal to the diminishment of all other human goals, yet with the diligence and problem solving ability we'd expect of human sentience.
Being able to copy/paste a human level intelligence program 1,000 or 10,000 times and have them all working together on a problem set 24 hours a day, 365 days a year would still be massively useful.
Basically: two nations tried to achieve AI supremacy; the two AI's learn of each other, from each other, then with each other; then they collaborate on taking control of human affairs. While the movie is movie is from 1970 (and the book from 1966), it's fun to think about how much more possible that scenario is today than it was then. (By possible, I'm talking about the AI using electronic surveillance and the ability to remotely control things. I'm not talking about the premise of the AI or how it would respond.)
=3