How the World Will Change: Law and Politics at the Hands of Generative AI
When we think of generative AI (gen AI), two things come to mind: One, the technology’s ability to simplify life, and two, the contribution the technology will make in swelling global GDP (apparently, by $4.4 trillion, going by McKinsey). We never think of how deeply gen AI will alter the core of society itself, the codes and principles that control and direct us, distinguishing human society from the animal kingdom. Late last year, we saw a glimmer of how radical this shift could be: A councilman in Porto Alegre, the second-largest city in southern Brazil, wrote a prompt that was turned into an eight-part bill by ChatGPT in 15 seconds. A 36-member council voted for it unanimously, without knowing an AI wrote it. It became the first law written by gen AI to be approved. Take a pause. This is not about the magic and convenience of using technology to summarize long legal texts or automatically generate legal complaints; it is not about using data and intelligent processes to write application code or support decision-making. It is about writing the laws that run the world. It is about making gen AI the flywheel for the rules of justice. How long will it take before courts accept AI as a legal personality? Let’s take that line of thinking to the extreme edge: How long before gen AI takes to politics and determines what a political party’s manifesto should be?
Not long. The answers to those questions will start becoming available in 2024. This is the year when 64 countries, including India, several nations in the EU, the US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Russia, the UK, South Africa, and Sri Lanka, among others, go to polls. These countries represent a massive part of the world — 49 percent of the global population — and will determine the future of democracy. Not surprisingly, 2024 is being called “the ultimate election year around the world.” But there is more reason than statistical facts to believe it will be the ultimate election year. Here is why: This is the year when we will see AI-generated campaign strategies backed by AI-generated messaging used by political parties to win elections.
The MIT Technology Review has a wonderful, if alarming, take on what could unfold regarding AI and politics. The publication believes that gen AI will not stay restricted to micro-legislation — the term used to describe the altering or improvement of existing laws or writing small pieces of legislation such as the one by the councilman in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
The MIT publication says a key milestone will be achieved when “AI-generated political messaging outscores campaign consultant recommendations in poll testing.” This genuine possibility takes the next logical step with AI creating “a political party with its own platform, attracting human candidates who win elections.” This is such an obvious application of gen AI, which we should have thought of but perhaps never did. Some experimentation in this direction has been done in Denmark with the Synthetic Party and its artificial representatives.
Some policy changes the Synthetic Party bot discussed had conflicts, and the Danish experiment tanked. The Synthetic Party did not get the required number of signatories to run for elections.
The failure of the Synthetic Party is hardly an insurmountable problem. Over time, these intelligent systems will self-correct and reach their goal — faster than we can imagine. But as of now, the technology could help existing parties decide which candidates stand the best chance of winning and ensure they run for elections. The MIT publication then runs the complete course of possibilities: How can AI help generate campaign contributions? And, once it wins, will it determine and promote public policy? Could it take over writing the law?
Outrageous as this sounds, I will keep a careful eye out for the most significant slugfest we have seen outside of the Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier match in 1971 as gen AI outwits seasoned political campaign consultants.
Here, we will take another well-deserved pause. This time, let’s look at how right or wrong this development could be.
Writing the law is one thing. Applying it is another. But holding judgment over the application of the law is what truly helps balance right versus wrong.
There is a reason some judgments are called “landmark judgments.” These judgments are greater than the law because the judge uses discernment to rise above the letter of the law. These judges, using inordinate wisdom, implement the law in spirit. It is unlikely Gen AI will be able to achieve this.
Discernment is a quality that we cannot expect gen AI to have. Discernment requires intellect. In Sanskrit, discernment is vivek, a word with profound philosophical and spiritual connotations. Viveka, the Sanskrit term, loosely means “right understanding” or the ability to differentiate between the real and unreal, the truth and the soul. So, while gen AI may set campaign strategy, shortlist candidates, win elections, dictate policy, write the law, and influence entire populations to adopt it (via social media posts?!), we will still have the wisdom of judges to dispense justice. Dispensing algorithmic justice with discernment and rising above the letter of the law is not a realistic expectation of gen AI. Not at the moment, anyway. But whichever way this goes, there is no denying that unprecedented societal changes await us at the other end of the gen AI tunnel.
