Politician reads AI prompt during assembly
youtube.com
youtube.com
But yes, it's a giant tell that politician used AI to write his speech, and he didn't thoroughly edit the response when preparing the final draft.
The staff used an LLM and did not bother to check (or got their check wrong.)
One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence should be in proportion to the gravity.
> that politician trusted some poorly paid staff
- I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result?
> to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).
- Is procedure not his job as a politician?
- If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?
> One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence [sic] should be in proportion to the gravity.
- Which is which?
- Which has more gravity and why?
- What consequences are you envisioning, in both cases?
- If, as I suspect, the consequences are lesser (proportionally) for the politician himself, what if any deterrents can be put into place to stop that behavior? After all, he manages his staff, in theory.
The more useful job of a politician may be similar to how managers in general have a "more useful" part of their jobs then publishing status report.
"Gathering information, making decisions, nudging others." Lobbying for their constituency (at best) or the people who paid for his campaign (at worse).
Or, heavens forbid, writing legislation on a topic that he knows something about, as opposed to whatever crap he had to slop about.
As I said, responsibility has to be shared. I would want neither the staff to be considered the sole problems, nor the polician career to be permanently halted because of this. (I know he's going to look stupid on the internet, and we'll all have a good laugh, but maybe he's also working on some serious stuff, and real people are going to pay real consequences because of what is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor blunder.
I'm more concerned about students not caring to learn to read because of AI.
> [post 2] "Of course they share responsibility."
I'm not following.
We're also still disregarding the fact that none of us can even prove that it was one of his staff that did this and not him, but your OP is worded like it's a given it was staff.
> The more useful job of a politician may be similar to how managers in general have a "more useful" part of their jobs then publishing status report. "Gathering information, making decisions, nudging others." Lobbying for their constituency (at best) or the people who paid for his campaign (at worse).
> Or, heavens forbid, writing legislation on a topic that he knows something about, as opposed to whatever crap he had to slop about.
Not sure about you, but I often find my job will oftentimes not always include the things I have the most experience in, and I'm expected to be able to rise to the occasion because I was hired to do so.
> As I said, responsibility has to be shared.
You said that? Because I read "one of them is guilty, the other one is responsible." If you mean that responsibility is synonymous here, why the distinction?
--
Revisiting my original questions that have gone unanswered:
- Is procedure not his job as a politician?
Given that you appear to have instead answered "If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?", I'm assuming "No", to which I disagree. If your answer is that "yes, procedure is part of his job", then I assert he failed to do his job here, regardless of how boring you find that job to be personally.
If the guilty/responsible distinction still holds, I'm still unclear as to what applies to whom.
> [post 2] "Of course they share responsibility."
> As I said, responsibility has to be shared.
Fair enough. I should have written that they share _blame_. I meant to highlight the difference between doing the bad deed, and being in a position where you have to take public responsibility for the bad deed.
> We're also still disregarding the fact that none of us can even prove that it was one of his staff that did this and not him, but your OP is worded like it's a given it was staff.
I have obviously no proof, but I'm pretty confident this is what happened.
The other option is that this very old busy man took the time to write this boring speech himself, also has the proficiency to use an LLM to write the boring speech, and that it's just a coincidence that he seems to be discovering the boring speach for the first time as he reads it in a boring procedural session.
Who knows ? Maybe that's what happened.
I've known underpaid parliamentary assistants, and I've known very old busy men, and the scenario where the very old busy man leaves that speech-writing to his parliamentary assistants , and discovers the speech for the first time as he roboticatly utters it in a session where he expects no one to listen, seems _vastly_ more realistic to me.
> Not sure about you, but I often find my job will oftentimes not always include the things I have the most experience in, and I'm expected to be able to rise to the occasion because I was hired to do so.
I suspect your job does not come with money to hire a staff to handle the menial and procedural parts of the job.
MPs _do_ have a budget for that, and the expectation that some people way under they paygrade will work on this kind of stuff.
> - Is procedure not his job as a politician?
I suspect we disagree on that, but to me, considering this kind of boring procedural talk as "part of a politician job" is akin to considering that "producing x64 assembly code" is part of a C-programmer's job.
Of course I expect him to delegate this part. And if there is a bug in the compiler (or, more likely, if there is a bug in one of the libs he's using), then who is to blame / guilty / responsible ?
Every single level failed here. Nothing works anymore. No one cares about anything making sense. I want fucking out.
< "cmon do it bro it'll be so funny"
Hanlon's Razor
I would rather speak to this man than anyone reading anything AI-written
Shades of "Prisencolinensinainciusol":
But the whole speech is the response. What do you call the bits at the start "Certainly, I can write a speech in this style" type thing, and at the end "Would you like to learn more about political speech writing?"
Perhaps something like "AI tells" but perhaps there's already an industry term.
Edit: hadn't watched the video, this is the former "response to prompt" type tell.
The floor has been raised for sure, and I am writing less boilerplate than before, and am able to diagnose bugs in my work quicker, but the amount of people that seemingly just copy and paste the AI output without critically thinking is causing me distress. There are seemingly no consequences either, more AI = more good.
Much as with some other widespread phenomena that come to mind, it's an observed trend the reverse of what might otherwise be expected.
Theoretically this effect would wear off with the next generation, unless there was durable damage to genetics that gets passed on. A cursory search suggests this may be possible, but I’m not a biologist or geneticist.
Those might be behavioural, cultural, environmental substances, information/media stressors, or others. More research is needed....
As I click another AI generated ad to tell which company could possibly have so little integrity…
See: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37521911>, also <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787831> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38659367>
For the past several years (since at least 2020, if not a few years earlier), I've commented/posted to HN exclusively from desktop systems.
The bad news is that this is as good as it gets ;-)
I was expecting him to read a proper prompt. The prompt would be what he would tell the AI system.
“You are a speech writer, an expert on XYZ… your task is to write ABC…”
It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai. And agree we can replace many of them with AI. At least we will have the opportunity to talk to the ai directly about concerns.
What is not too bad about him using "AI", exactly?
This is bad because it's only getting harder to trust people. This is not someone I would want representing me. Although I'm not thrilled about any of my representatives anyway.
(I'm presuming it, and the other comments of this subthread, are humanly generated. Which may be being generous....)