09-06-2024, 04:32 PM
This post was last modified 09-06-2024, 04:44 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
Oooh, oooh! I've never had a contextually-relevant place to post this thought before...
Such a theoretical AI, one with the kind of processing speed as Grok3 might sport, could be used to all manner of absolutely fantastic tasks...
For example:
A complete analysis of the tax-law code, including times and conditions, to demonstrate that the IRS' application of "Tax" law is perfectly fair and balanced
, that there are no inconsistencies or schemes embedded within it for 'some' to use and to be denied (or not even made available) to others... using symbolic logic and, and an LLM once could find exactly "when" and "where" things got "unjust" and or "exploitative"... knowing that you can deduce the "who" ushered the code, and then you could infer the "why."
or
A complete and comprehensive analysis of US juris prudence, the where's and when 'exceptions' were employed for a similar end as above... or perhaps the actual practices of 'prosecutions' to be represented by the tools of legal contrivance, the posture of prosecutorial judgement... it would lay bare the reality of how and in what way the law has become a tool of something other than justice.
or
A complete and comprehensive analysis of US legislation, it's architecture and evolution. The analysis of "content" and "design" alone would reveal exactly the chain of authorship, and it would be easy to see, in detail, the evidence of an architect "outside" the electorate. The legislatorial process has undeniably degraded over the last 10 generations of political "party" identities. Such a large scale distillation of 'proposals,' 'content,' 'timing,' and 'effect' would be very telling about exactly what it might be that has "gone wrong."
Any of several "legal" domains could benefit from an unbiased "logic enema," such as could be carried out be a sober and cogent tool... contract law, patent law, the "law" and "medicine." There are very many who might agree if I were to proclaim that juris prudence is broken, now...
But who am I kidding... the system isn't 'broken.' It is doing exactly what they want it to do (it is their design)… And they would rather spend billions to "insert" their own biases into an "AI" model to conceal it, rather than face the hard cutting fire of a real analysis.
It's a goddamn shame that "AI," such as it will manifest, will be exactly what the wrong people want it to be. And it will be "used" in the manner they plan.
Such a theoretical AI, one with the kind of processing speed as Grok3 might sport, could be used to all manner of absolutely fantastic tasks...
For example:
A complete analysis of the tax-law code, including times and conditions, to demonstrate that the IRS' application of "Tax" law is perfectly fair and balanced
, that there are no inconsistencies or schemes embedded within it for 'some' to use and to be denied (or not even made available) to others... using symbolic logic and, and an LLM once could find exactly "when" and "where" things got "unjust" and or "exploitative"... knowing that you can deduce the "who" ushered the code, and then you could infer the "why."or
A complete and comprehensive analysis of US juris prudence, the where's and when 'exceptions' were employed for a similar end as above... or perhaps the actual practices of 'prosecutions' to be represented by the tools of legal contrivance, the posture of prosecutorial judgement... it would lay bare the reality of how and in what way the law has become a tool of something other than justice.
or
A complete and comprehensive analysis of US legislation, it's architecture and evolution. The analysis of "content" and "design" alone would reveal exactly the chain of authorship, and it would be easy to see, in detail, the evidence of an architect "outside" the electorate. The legislatorial process has undeniably degraded over the last 10 generations of political "party" identities. Such a large scale distillation of 'proposals,' 'content,' 'timing,' and 'effect' would be very telling about exactly what it might be that has "gone wrong."
Any of several "legal" domains could benefit from an unbiased "logic enema," such as could be carried out be a sober and cogent tool... contract law, patent law, the "law" and "medicine." There are very many who might agree if I were to proclaim that juris prudence is broken, now...
But who am I kidding... the system isn't 'broken.' It is doing exactly what they want it to do (it is their design)… And they would rather spend billions to "insert" their own biases into an "AI" model to conceal it, rather than face the hard cutting fire of a real analysis.
It's a goddamn shame that "AI," such as it will manifest, will be exactly what the wrong people want it to be. And it will be "used" in the manner they plan.
