So, a thought — it would be good to know the authors of some of our public statements of record. We already do this (mostly) with High Court opinions, but I think it makes sense in other areas as well.
I think someone could lie easily about using ai what would be the punishment for doing so also
What’s the reasoning, or, more broadly, what is the punishment for not following it? Feels hard to prove and impossible to enforce.
As an example, if I got help with one sentence in my electoral campaign from another citizen, I’d the intent to require that contribution? Even if it was a grammatical correction and not a substantive one?
I don’t think it’s really that different from existing requirements like “justices have to name who’s involved in writing the opinion” or “candidates have to disclose their potential conflicts of interest.” It’s also not necessarily a mark of shame that deserves punishment — I don’t mind collaboration! But as a citizen and legislator I would like to know about it, just as I’d like at least the ability to take potential conflicts of interests into consideration without feeling like we should ban or criminalize conflicts of interest. I think it’s not dissimilar to why you might want citizenship applications to pledge to follow our laws, even though it’s hardly an obstacle to anyone who actually intends to break our laws, or why you might want to have a provision that says citizens will debate the merits of candidates’ campaigns without trying to require some quota of debate posts to fulfill that requirement.
I mean, you’re free to say something like “thanks to so-and-so for their grammatical suggestions.” I don’t think it’s a big deal, and it wouldn’t sway my vote, but I don’t think it’s harmful to let voters know. But I think there is not-necessarily-trivial information in who a candidate circulates their platform with before releasing it publicly, or who a candidate trusts to suggest particular wording that makes its way into the campaign.
I did choose the word “writing” though because I don’t care much for the case where a candidate heard an idea in an Assembly debate six months ago and now wants to campaign on a revised version. But it seemed to me like the point where a candidate posts words that someone else wrote seemed like a reasonable place to draw a line. It’s not a “do not cross” line, it’s just a “please tell me” line.
Echoing Henn, I think its hard to prove or enforce. I also think this would be needlessly bureaucratic and lead to less people contributing since you may need some AI (or other player) assistance as a newer player to help flesh out ideas.
Sure, and we can take it amendment by amendment if that’s what folks prefer. But I don’t see how the amendment to the Judicial Act is really harder to enforce than the existing requirement to name any individuals involved in crafting the opinion.
How so? There’s no bureaucrat involved. All we’d have to do is name-drop people the way we already usually do. Justices can cite whatever AI tool they use the same way they already cite their sources. Authors of legislative proposals can just mention the names of their co-authors the way they already commonly do.
None of that would be prohibited though. Would you say that we should not require conflict of interest disclosures in campaigns because it would lead to less people contributing?