The prompt would be transparent and we would use fixed version of LLM so it would be impossible to attack it by modifying the model. Unless they would start injecting prompts into legislation we would be fine.
There of course will be a person representing the AI but they will always vote the way the LLM tells them to.
That means the LLM is voting in all but the actual mechanics of having its vote registered.
Unless they would start injecting prompts into legislation we would be fine.
Yeah, no. The way Congress works right now, the primary attack vector would be internal, not external. Aside from the whole bias thing, injecting prompts would only be the first thing anyone with access would do.
You may not be aware of this, but there is a LOT of legislation not actually written by legislators, who are very busy people, but by lobbyists and lawyers who are glad to do it for them. There is already no actual way of knowing what specific person penned any specific line in any given law outside a legislators’ word that they did it personally or their staff did.
You’re literally opening up that vote to anyone savvy enough to “do it for” a busy legislator, which is already occurring in every other way. Even Jon Stewart was asked to write the legislation for the 911 first responders, and he’s not an attorney, just a passionate guy lobbying for righteous legislation.
And what about the legislators that are already corrupt? If the legislator to whose vote you bind this LLM is already selling their power, why would they not just tell that donor or that lobbyist “hey, now you gotta fix the LLM too” in order to continue doing business as usual?
So for as long as your hypothetical unbiased LLM exists, it would present an open challenge to any comer, both from within Congress and without, to change its recommendations with the prize being the ability to switch any given vote. That’s a hell of a brass ring to reach for when you’re talking about votes worth billions of dollars passing or failing on razor thin margins like they are these days.
And making the LLM “fixed” – static – would not make it safer: if it could be made unfixed in a way that preserved its unchanged appearance, it absolutely would be.
And even then, if it passed all those hurdles and managed to remain incorruptibly non-involved, dependent solely on what it had been fed in the beginning, it still would not have the inherent understanding of humanity required to make correct and rapid decisions in a crisis, because it would not be traveling a cognitive path of understanding relative urgency, but whatever was already baked into it for normal operation.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
“‘Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind.’”
Cool idea, though. I like the way you think. But for now it’s still science fiction (I very seriously hope).
None of those issues you mention are real or relevant. I think you’re imagining an “AI politician” that’s like the president or majority leader: has to interact with people and the process in many different points, has to come up with a strategy and convince people to follow it. I’m talking about voting machine. There are 400 representatives in US. Most of them are just that, voting machines. The problem is:
they will say one thing to get elected and then do something else (Fetterman)
they can’t be elected because of some bullshit they did 20 years ago (Platner)
they get corrupted by this fucked up system
What you need from a average representative is not to write bills and “make correct and rapid decisions in a crisis,”. It just has to:
present his program before elections (“I’m for affordable housing, public healthcare, wealth tax” and so on)
vote yes on bills that help realize his program, vote no on bills that don’t
You put the program into the prompt, give it the bill and ask if the bill supports the program or not. My guess is you could easily replace 300 representatives with that without affecting the whole process other than making it cheaper, more transparent and less corrupt.
As for technicalities, just say “we’re using qwen 3.6 with those params”. The prompt is public. Everyone would be able to verify how it should vote. There would be minimal variability but I think any real shenanigans would be detectable.
The prompt would be transparent and we would use fixed version of LLM so it would be impossible to attack it by modifying the model. Unless they would start injecting prompts into legislation we would be fine.
That means the LLM is voting in all but the actual mechanics of having its vote registered.
Yeah, no. The way Congress works right now, the primary attack vector would be internal, not external. Aside from the whole bias thing, injecting prompts would only be the first thing anyone with access would do.
You may not be aware of this, but there is a LOT of legislation not actually written by legislators, who are very busy people, but by lobbyists and lawyers who are glad to do it for them. There is already no actual way of knowing what specific person penned any specific line in any given law outside a legislators’ word that they did it personally or their staff did.
You’re literally opening up that vote to anyone savvy enough to “do it for” a busy legislator, which is already occurring in every other way. Even Jon Stewart was asked to write the legislation for the 911 first responders, and he’s not an attorney, just a passionate guy lobbying for righteous legislation.
And what about the legislators that are already corrupt? If the legislator to whose vote you bind this LLM is already selling their power, why would they not just tell that donor or that lobbyist “hey, now you gotta fix the LLM too” in order to continue doing business as usual?
So for as long as your hypothetical unbiased LLM exists, it would present an open challenge to any comer, both from within Congress and without, to change its recommendations with the prize being the ability to switch any given vote. That’s a hell of a brass ring to reach for when you’re talking about votes worth billions of dollars passing or failing on razor thin margins like they are these days.
And making the LLM “fixed” – static – would not make it safer: if it could be made unfixed in a way that preserved its unchanged appearance, it absolutely would be.
And even then, if it passed all those hurdles and managed to remain incorruptibly non-involved, dependent solely on what it had been fed in the beginning, it still would not have the inherent understanding of humanity required to make correct and rapid decisions in a crisis, because it would not be traveling a cognitive path of understanding relative urgency, but whatever was already baked into it for normal operation.
I hate to quote any bible, but the Orange Catholic Bible had it right:
Cool idea, though. I like the way you think. But for now it’s still science fiction (I very seriously hope).
None of those issues you mention are real or relevant. I think you’re imagining an “AI politician” that’s like the president or majority leader: has to interact with people and the process in many different points, has to come up with a strategy and convince people to follow it. I’m talking about voting machine. There are 400 representatives in US. Most of them are just that, voting machines. The problem is:
What you need from a average representative is not to write bills and “make correct and rapid decisions in a crisis,”. It just has to:
You put the program into the prompt, give it the bill and ask if the bill supports the program or not. My guess is you could easily replace 300 representatives with that without affecting the whole process other than making it cheaper, more transparent and less corrupt.
As for technicalities, just say “we’re using qwen 3.6 with those params”. The prompt is public. Everyone would be able to verify how it should vote. There would be minimal variability but I think any real shenanigans would be detectable.