WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

378

We need only have human oversight to confirm AI conclusions and stamp them. AIs can drastically reduce trial duration and costs against mega corporations such that the biggest budget no longer determines the winner.

Everyone talks about how coder's jobs are at risk (for the majority, they are not). But the reality is, doctors, lawyers, and judges don't actually produce anything. They simply cite established diagnosis, or rulings arguing their current case pattern matches with previous cases.

Likewise, AIs can be used to review and summarize bills before Congress to identify fraud, loop holes, constitutional violations, and parties who disproportionately benefit contrary to the will and good of the people.

We need only have human oversight to confirm AI conclusions and stamp them. AIs can drastically reduce trial duration and costs against mega corporations such that the biggest budget no longer determines the winner. Everyone talks about how coder's jobs are at risk (for the majority, they are not). But the reality is, doctors, lawyers, and judges don't actually produce anything. They simply cite established diagnosis, or rulings arguing their current case pattern matches with previous cases. Likewise, AIs can be used to review and summarize bills before Congress to identify fraud, loop holes, constitutional violations, and parties who disproportionately benefit contrary to the will and good of the people.

(post is archived)

[–] 0 pt

Doesn't change the fact that an unbiased AI can easily replace them and drastically improve global health of humans. To be clear, I don't disagree that AIs can be and are corrupted. But this is the juxtaposition with AIs and who they can effect versus (((AIs))) and who they target.