Yeah. Of course it’s going to be a problem. Just like any tool that allows people to easily offload work. These people are seeking to bring balance back to their life in a world that’s driven their free time to near zero. They need to be taught how to properly apply the tool, cause sorry to tell ya, the genie is out of the bottle. LLMs are here to stay. So we need to learn to use them appropriately rather than trying to outlaw their use in some way.

Until we get a framework for how to use them appropriately as a society we just need to settle on holding people accountable for blindly trusting their output. At the end of the day, you should be responsible for the work you do. And that includes harmful output and/or outcomes of the AI company itself. If the AI is actively spreading misinformation or harmful content the company and its management should be held liable for damages.

Then the issue should be with laziness and poor quality control by the lawmaker. The output of AI is known to have issues. If an issue is found then the repercussions of the output falls squarely on the lawmaker and should be kept in mind during elections or recalls if applicable.

Who cares? As long as the law isn’t inherently flawed or unfair to his/her constituents, I could care less. Its not like lawmakers were previously writing law all by themselves. They offloaded that work to legal teams long ago. So if it was written by AI and manually reviewed by a legal team what’s the difference other than a few seconds of compute to generate the text? Training models and building out unnecessary infrastructure is the primary issue with AI.