Every weekday Declan Garvey and Esther Eaton provide an essential news briefing—along with original reporting and analysis on the biggest stories.
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy
Plus: Checking in on the jury system.
Happy Wednesday! Did you pick up your new Dispatch sticker, rocks glass, or “treats” mug? We’re reliably told product has been flying off the shelves, so get your orders in!
Members of Congress might not agree on much, but at a Tuesday hearing before the Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, they all affirmed it’s crucial to get artificial intelligence regulation right. Lawmakers compared the technology to the breakthroughs of the printing press, internet, and atomic bomb, while Sam Altman—CEO of OpenAI, which creates AI tools including ChatGPT—warned that “if this technology goes wrong, it can go quite wrong.”
Cheer up, ChatGPT told TMD: “Regulating AI doesn’t mean we have to be AI-fraid of it!”
We’ll keep writing our own jokes for now. And ChatGPT’s reassurances won’t do much for lawmakers who expect AI tools to shape elections, news, and labor markets—and are worried about repeating regulatory mistakes made with social media companies. Tuesday, they asked Altman and other experts for help regulating AI without quashing its useful attributes.
I was a little disappointed with last night’s Dispatch Live that they didn’t comment on Nikki Haley. the few times I’ve heard her speak publicly she seemed pretty sharp to me.
LUK: yes and yes.
“Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri suggested slicing this Gordian Knot by skipping an oversight body and instead making it easier for harmed consumers to sue AI companies. “You want to talk about crowdsourcing—we’ll just open the courthouse doors,” the Republican senator said. Marcus cautioned that existing laws weren’t written with AI tools in mind, so lawyers might find ways to argue they don’t apply to these new tools, cutting off lawsuits at the knees. “We can fix that,” Hawley promised.”
I thought conservatives were concerned as to how litigious our society is and were all in for tort reform.
What’s this Bozo saying?…
Yes, I’ve been on a jury; in fact I was chosen as the foreperson. This was many, many years ago. The defendant was charged with disorderly conduct and his attorneys were claiming police brutality. The minute we walked into the jury room, a member of the jury pronounced he didn’t trust the police and wouldn’t believe a word they said. The rest of us quickly concluded that the defendant was guilty of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest but this one juror, who should never have been on this jury, hung the jury. Nothing any of the other jurors said would change his mind. Still, I believe a jury of one’s peers is the fairest way to adjudicate disputes. Most jurors take their job very seriously.
Thanks for referring us to that Atlantic interview with the pro-abortion doctor. (The Atlantic has this annoying feature on Apple News where “Atlantic editors pick one must-read article from the Atlantic *every Monday through Friday.*” Just tell us to read the whole issue, guys!)
Interesting that the old abortion doc uses the same G-Word as G-File to describe late-term abortions: “grotesque.”
I am pro life, but I am willing to except a 12 week compromise. I’m often disappoint it by those who called them selves “pro choice”. Many seem to revel in the cruelty of late term abortions. That’s just sad.
I think that last sentence is quite inaccurate. Most people who support such procedures believe that 99% of the are done for legitimate health concerns (one even stated as much in these comments). There are many statistics as well as anecdotes out there showing this belief to be inaccurate. But I don’t think people are just lying to cover up actual bloodlust towards even viable preborns, either.
LUK: There are few better options than juries. Most commonly it is politician-appointed judges that are very easy sources of bias and corruption.
No one tried to make a “let AI do it” joke? Fine, we’ll let ChatGPT do it:
“Why did the AI get fired from jury duty?
Because it always delivered an “unbiased verdict” — 50% guilty, 50% innocent, and 100% confusing!”
I actually want to serve on a jury at some point in my life. I got called for jury duty last year. After a few hours of selection, I did not make the cut. I think the fact that I am a friend of the district attorney and the judge in this small, rural county probably eliminated me from consideration, haha.
The jury system seems to be poorly suited for the increasing complexity of modern trials. Cynically, you can argue that juries are composed of a group of the least informed, least engaged citizens who have nothing better to do than attend jury duty.
If you’re engaged with the news, there’s a good chance you’re going to be excluded from a jury because you’ve already been exposed to information. Lawyers also aren’t going to be thrilled if you have any expertise particularly related to the trial. The ideal juror doesn’t follow the news or talk about current events with anybody. In most professions, an incurious, unengaged temperament isn’t exactly a recommendation for intellectual capability or talent.
Trials have been steadily increasing in length. Being tapped for poorly-paid jury duty is a significant hardship for most people, for whom even a week of lost income can be quite a blow. If you’re a professional or run your own business, a month away from work for a long trial could be catastrophic. Sheriffs usually recognize these factors when excusing people from jury duty, but it tends to winnow down the range of people and perspectives in the jury pool.
Artificial intelligence. Members of Congress who probably have their assistants update their smartphones. What could go wrong?
Your feedback is important in helping us keep our community safe.
He Fights?
The Narratives Are Taking Hold
Pence Allies Launch Super PAC Ahead of White House Bid
The Great Unlearning
In Iowa, Ron DeSantis Shops Retail (for Votes)
About Declan Garvey
About Esther Eaton
About Mary Trimble
About Grayson Logue
I was a little disappointed with last night’s Dispatch Live that they didn’t comment on Nikki Haley. the few times I’ve heard her speak publicly she seemed pretty sharp to me.
LUK: yes and yes.
“Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri suggested slicing this Gordian Knot by skipping an oversight body and instead making it easier for harmed consumers to sue AI companies. “You want to talk about crowdsourcing—we’ll just open the courthouse doors,” the Republican senator said. Marcus cautioned that existing laws weren’t written with AI tools in mind, so lawyers might find ways to argue they don’t apply to these new tools, cutting off lawsuits at the knees. “We can fix that,” Hawley promised.”
I thought conservatives were concerned as to how litigious our society is and were all in for tort reform.
What’s this Bozo saying?…
Yes, I’ve been on a jury; in fact I was chosen as the foreperson. This was many, many years ago. The defendant was charged with disorderly conduct and his attorneys were claiming police brutality. The minute we walked into the jury room, a member of the jury pronounced he didn’t trust the police and wouldn’t believe a word they said. The rest of us quickly concluded that the defendant was guilty of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest but this one juror, who should never have been on this jury, hung the jury. Nothing any of the other jurors said would change his mind. Still, I believe a jury of one’s peers is the fairest way to adjudicate disputes. Most jurors take their job very seriously.
Thanks for referring us to that Atlantic interview with the pro-abortion doctor. (The Atlantic has this annoying feature on Apple News where “Atlantic editors pick one must-read article from the Atlantic *every Monday through Friday.*” Just tell us to read the whole issue, guys!)
Interesting that the old abortion doc uses the same G-Word as G-File to describe late-term abortions: “grotesque.”
I am pro life, but I am willing to except a 12 week compromise. I’m often disappoint it by those who called them selves “pro choice”. Many seem to revel in the cruelty of late term abortions. That’s just sad.
I think that last sentence is quite inaccurate. Most people who support such procedures believe that 99% of the are done for legitimate health concerns (one even stated as much in these comments). There are many statistics as well as anecdotes out there showing this belief to be inaccurate. But I don’t think people are just lying to cover up actual bloodlust towards even viable preborns, either.
LUK: There are few better options than juries. Most commonly it is politician-appointed judges that are very easy sources of bias and corruption.
No one tried to make a “let AI do it” joke? Fine, we’ll let ChatGPT do it:
“Why did the AI get fired from jury duty?
Because it always delivered an “unbiased verdict” — 50% guilty, 50% innocent, and 100% confusing!”
I actually want to serve on a jury at some point in my life. I got called for jury duty last year. After a few hours of selection, I did not make the cut. I think the fact that I am a friend of the district attorney and the judge in this small, rural county probably eliminated me from consideration, haha.
The jury system seems to be poorly suited for the increasing complexity of modern trials. Cynically, you can argue that juries are composed of a group of the least informed, least engaged citizens who have nothing better to do than attend jury duty.
If you’re engaged with the news, there’s a good chance you’re going to be excluded from a jury because you’ve already been exposed to information. Lawyers also aren’t going to be thrilled if you have any expertise particularly related to the trial. The ideal juror doesn’t follow the news or talk about current events with anybody. In most professions, an incurious, unengaged temperament isn’t exactly a recommendation for intellectual capability or talent.
Trials have been steadily increasing in length. Being tapped for poorly-paid jury duty is a significant hardship for most people, for whom even a week of lost income can be quite a blow. If you’re a professional or run your own business, a month away from work for a long trial could be catastrophic. Sheriffs usually recognize these factors when excusing people from jury duty, but it tends to winnow down the range of people and perspectives in the jury pool.
Artificial intelligence. Members of Congress who probably have their assistants update their smartphones. What could go wrong?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.