Futurists and science-fiction writers have been warning us about artificial intelligence for years. Movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey advanced the notion that computers eventually will be smarter than we are and ultimately will take over. Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
Now artificial intelligence (AI) technology is here. ChatBot systems like ChatGPT connect a language capability to large-scale digital research – which enables it to answer questions and write college term papers. It’s as if the annoyingly lame “chat” feature on customer service websites just graduated from MIT and swallowed Google. This has led to speculation about the number and kinds of jobs AI could replace such as customer service people, data analysts, paralegals, market analysts, even journalists.
So powerful is this technology that experts like Elon Musk are calling for a pause in developing artificial intelligence to figure things out and make sure the technology is used responsibly.
Predictably, the politicians are getting involved. The rapid growth of ChatGPT is prompting calls for regulation from Congress. I’m sure our elected representatives are concerned about the potential impact of artificial intelligence on democracy and their constituents.
There may be a more important motivation: Politicians are worried that artificial intelligence will replace THEM.
This may be a valid concern, especially for members of Congress. Consider what our elected representatives actually do. They make speeches. So can ChatGPT. Legislators review information and vote on legislation. Check. We already know ChatGPT is politically biased. I’ll bet the system even can be programmed to ask donors for contributions.
The senior senator from my state is a case in point. Since the U.S. Senate no longer debates legislation, his speeches on the Senate floor are largely performative and ripe for ChatGPT. My senator is in such lock-step with his donors and party leaders that his floor votes probably could be handled by a basic iPhone app. His social media posts already may be automated.
Replacing Congress with artificial intelligence would be disruptive, of course. How can we expect 435 representatives and 100 senators to find honest work? Will we still need ribbon-cutting ceremonies for government projects?
There may be some advantages, however. Artificial intelligence is lots better at math than any elected representative. It would be less likely to approve government spending the taxpayers can’t afford.
What if a robo-representative could be programmed to evaluate public opinion polling and actually represent the views of the majority of its constituents? It probably would adopt moderate positions on issues such as abortion instead of stampeding to the extremes pushed by advocacy groups.
This could make the government logical, businesslike and unifying, and that would be really disruptive. Eliminating political outrage would threaten the business models of CNN, Fox News, the New York Times and other media. But I guess the news media could survive by adopting their own radical change: use automated reporters to produce fair and balanced news coverage.