Boss lays people off, says AI did it, workers rage about AI instead of boss, boss wins.
This is the same tactic. Just make the people blame AI instead of lawmakers.
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
66 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
5429 readers
216 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
best move for deregulation
Zerzan appeared interested mainly in the quantity of regulations that AI could produce, not their quality. “We don’t need the perfect rule on XYZ. We don’t even need a very good rule on XYZ,” he said, according to the meeting notes. “We want good enough.” Zerzan added, “We’re flooding the zone.”
They are going for more regulation. If I had to guess, probably to flood federal courts with cases, hoping that they are too overwhelmed to stop anything important.
It's anticompetitive. Trying to keep up will kill off many businesses, which can be snapped up by the larger firms and corpos that can either afford to pay the fines or can simply ignore new regulations while their lawyers try to fight.
Oh my god, this isn't The Onion.
This looks like a notoriously bad idea.
In 2023, a city (Porto Alegre) near-ish my homeland approved a law initially proposed by ChatGPT, then manually reviewed and edited. Here's a link; it shows both the initial proposal and final version (both in Portuguese).
The law addresses some shite the water and sewage department (DMAE) did often:
- install new water meter for a house, with no regards to its placement or securing it properly
- wait until water meter gets stolen for parts (welcome to Latin America!)
- charge house owner for a new water meter
- go back to step 1.
So a councilperson prompted ChatGPT to draft a law addressing it. And the draft sounds reasonable… until you inspect it further, and notice a certain article omitted from the final revision:
[Rough translation] 7th article. DMAE shall be allowed to establish complementary norms to regulate the enforcement of this law.
Why was this article omitted? Remember: DMAE was the very department being legislated against. If allowed to issue "complementary norms" regarding that law, the law would become toilet paper — because all the department had to do is to claim "the law is only valid if the theft happens in the 31st of February!" or some equally dumb shit.
The issue I mentioned above was fairly specific, the solution was straightforward, and mostly non-partisan. And the entity in question was a city government, so no "nested" political entities. And the e-muppet was still able to drop such a huge bollock.
What would happen if this was done on a country level? And it included partisan matters? And the issue was something complex, with no "right" answer?
That's what I'm thinking, while reading the link in the OP.
So we’re asking ChatGPT to write laws now?
You can tell this isn't true because there is no way trump plans to do anything with any kind of intelligence.