How AI could write our laws

Second, we should strengthen disclosure requirements on lobbyists, whether they’re entirely human or AI-assisted. State laws regarding lobbying disclosure are a hodgepodge. North Dakota, for example, only requires lobbying reports to be filed annually, so that by the time a disclosure is made, the policy is likely already decided. A lobbying disclosure scorecard created by Open Secrets, a group researching the influence of money in US politics, tracks nine states that do not even require lobbyists to report their compensation.

Ideally, it would be great for the public to see all communication between lobbyists and legislators, whether it takes the form of a proposed amendment or not. Absent that, let’s give the public the benefit of reviewing what lobbyists are lobbying for—and why. Lobbying is traditionally an activity that happens behind closed doors. Right now, many states reinforce that: they actually exempt testimony delivered publicly to a legislature from being reported as lobbying. 

In those jurisdictions, if you reveal your position to the public, you’re no longer lobbying. Let’s do the inverse: require lobbyists to reveal their positions on issues. Some jurisdictions already require a statement of position (a ‘yea’ or ‘nay’) from registered lobbyists. And in most (but not all) states, you could make a public records request regarding meetings held with a state legislator and hope to get something substantive back. But we can expect more—lobbyists could be required to proactively publish, within a few days, a brief summary of what they demanded of policymakers during meetings and why they believe it’s in the general interest.

We can’t rely on corporations to be forthcoming and wholly honest about the reasons behind their lobbying positions. But having them on the record about their intentions would at least provide a baseline for accountability.

Finally, consider the role AI

Read the rest

Ielts Writing Task 2.

In some countries, some criminal trials in law courts are shown on television so that the general public can watch them. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

In several nations, court trials are televised publicly. Personally, the benefits of this can outweigh its drawbacks.

One of the primary setbacks of televising criminal trials is that media coverage can lead to widespread frustration and opposition. If the punishments imposed are insensible or there is evidence of bias affecting the judgments, the public will likely react with protest and resentment, which could act as a precursor to social unrest. However, I believe that such a consequence is inevitable, and can even be beneficial to the citizens as they can demand a retrial, which would allow for more sensible judgments to be made. Another disadvantage is that children’s early exposure to criminal trials can inadvertently impact their psyche. Nonetheless, it is parents’ responsibility to preclude their kids from watching those programs, rather than the law courts.

Despite these drawbacks, the advantages of covering criminal trials are more significant, with the chief benefit being the reduction of public stress. For example, by showing a serial killer being sentenced to life punishment, authorities can provide relief to the public relieved and restore their sense of security. Another benefit is that publicizing these trials can also ensure the fairness of judgments, as criminals are penalized sensibly and without favoritism. Consequently, the public will possibly trust their legal system and have confidence in its ability to deliver justice.

In conclusion, I maintain that the perks of broadcasting court trials, including public relief and guaranteed impartiality, can eclipse the disadvantages, such as potential public outrage and negative effects on children’s minds. Moreover, it is my opinion that these setbacks can be managed effectively if

Read the rest