AI drafted a housing bill. Critics say it’s not smart.

[ad_1]

These days, it seems like the reach of artificial intelligence knows no bounds, from generating images, prose and jokes to automating various work functions. But advances in technology can come with hidden costs.

Earlier this year, a lawyer found himself in hot water after using Chat GPT to craft his legal argument, resulting in imaginary case law citations and nonexistent trial decisions. The safety of Tesla’s self-driving cars, which rely on AI, is under federal scrutiny.

Now for the next AI star: A lawmaker in New York said he consulted an AI bot to come up with ideas for new legislation.

The lawmaker, Assemblyman Clyde Vanel, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly Subcommittee on Internet and New Technologies, asked the software to identify a loophole in New York law.

The result is a bill, put on the legislative docket by Mr Vanel, that would change the housing code to require landlords to provide tenants with a copy of their lease upon request up to twice a year.

As part of the bill, which was first reported by the city and state, Mr. Vanel revealed that it was researched and drafted by artificial intelligence.

We can’t be Luddites, Mr Vanel, a Democrat who represents Eastern Queens, said in an interview. We need to understand these technologies and understand how these technologies can improve what we do.

Mr. Vanel used Auto-GPT, a program that is a more advanced version of the Chat GPT software that has sparked a pandemonium of plagiarism in American high schools.

The purpose of the bill, the IA explained, was to empower tenants and familiarize them with their responsibilities, while promoting a more transparent landlord-tenant relationship.

Mr Vanel said he was impressed with the insight of the software, adding that he made some slight changes after human refinement and fact-checking. Nevertheless, the practical impact of the bill is somewhat murky.

Tenants generally receive a copy of their leases when they sign them, although there are instances where they may need to request a replacement to prove the terms of their original lease agreement as part of a litigation or during a claim for benefits, for example.

It’s not something we care about that much, said Cea Weaver, campaign coordinator with Housing Justice for All, one of the loudest tenant advocacy groups in the state.

Frank Ricci of the Rent Stabilization Association agreed: I don’t know what the purpose of the bill is, to be perfectly honest, he said, adding: Maybe the real story here is that the AI in some areas just doesn’t make sense. Maybe it’s not that smart.

James Fishman, a lawyer with decades of experience in landlord-tenant issues, said such a measure would only be useful in limited circumstances, when such a document actually existed and the landlord himself in had a copy. And because it says nothing about enforcement, Mr. Fishman noted, it would likely only benefit those whose owners were willing to comply without being pressured to do so.

It’s kind of like a homogenized view of New York’s landlord-tenant, disregarding so many nuances and gray areas, he said.

Certainly, the lack of housing, especially affordable housing, is a crisis in New York that has caused many people to leave the state. And though the issue was repeatedly proclaimed high on the list of priorities in the last legislative session, Democrats failed to reach a deal that would meet the many and often conflicting goals of tenants, landlords, promoters and decision makers.

Linda Rosenthal, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly Housing Committee, was unimpressed with software’s contribution to the housing debate.

Amnesty International has failed to identify and reflect what the housing crisis is all about, Ms Rosenthal said. These are certainly not people who ask their landlord, by law, to send them a copy of their lease.

Mr Vanel defended the software, saying the bill was not meant to be revolutionary. He said seeking ideas from AI was no different from accepting those shared by voters or advocacy groups in one step at the start of a very long and very human legislative process.

But John Pelissero, a specialist in government ethics at Santa Clara University, urged caution, saying that while it was interesting to imagine a world in which laws were based on the priorities and morality of government. artificial intelligence, such a bet was likely to have ethical and moral consequences. political costs.

If voters have to make another decision two years from now on whether or not to keep this person in power, he said, they should be able to do so with a reasonable expectation that they will observe and see the person they want. they elected.

He added: This is what representative democracy is based on.

[ad_2]