All the “experts in Medicare/ Medicaid” in DC are payed shills of the health insurance industry recommending they both be dissolved or privatized.
Honestly chatgpt might be better as it does have a tendency to “both sides” political topics. Of course you can inject your own biases in the question and chatgpt will usually agree with you, but it’ll at least sometimes give you pushback which an insurance lobbyist will never do.
Senators are also inundated with biased sources, I imagine tuberville has been in an echo chamber for his entire life. A basic AI response might actually be more nuanced and honest.
Every senator and their staff are constantly orbited by lobbyist “experts” offering to write new laws for them. Actual experts are working at institutions, and are not taking senators to expensive dinners by helicopter and limousine.
There used to be whole ass boards appointments for this, like usa had the Office of Technology Assessment working for Congress, where they paid various experts from various fields to come in and review stuff and give advice.
Wouldn’t senators have access to actual experts who, unlike ChatGPT, would be correct close to 100% of the time?
But those experts don’t tell Mr. Senator “you’re absolutely right!” often enough.
In this particular case, I can’t imagine they’d tell him that with any frequency that might at all be considered “often.”
EDIT: to be clear by “they” I meant experts, not AI.
All the “experts in Medicare/ Medicaid” in DC are payed shills of the health insurance industry recommending they both be dissolved or privatized.
Honestly chatgpt might be better as it does have a tendency to “both sides” political topics. Of course you can inject your own biases in the question and chatgpt will usually agree with you, but it’ll at least sometimes give you pushback which an insurance lobbyist will never do.
I was thinking the same thing, he might actually be learning something
Senators are also inundated with biased sources, I imagine tuberville has been in an echo chamber for his entire life. A basic AI response might actually be more nuanced and honest.
Every senator and their staff are constantly orbited by lobbyist “experts” offering to write new laws for them. Actual experts are working at institutions, and are not taking senators to expensive dinners by helicopter and limousine.
It’s a mix, but yes. The oil companies are very interested in making sure the “experts” are theirs.
ChatGPT might be better, depending on how often he “corrects” it.
Also a future issue of how much influence these companies have. I hear NYT is already targeting ads at AI.
There used to be whole ass boards appointments for this, like usa had the Office of Technology Assessment working for Congress, where they paid various experts from various fields to come in and review stuff and give advice.