So is her role to be a regulator, preventing LLMs from degrading city services?
Or is her role to be a backdoor around regulations so that AI slop companies can invade, degrade, and turn a quick profit?
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
22 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23004 readers
270 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to The Labour Community.
Take any slop posts to the slop trough
Main is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's the second one. She's there to help integrate AI into government functions.
a regulator, preventing LLMs from degrading city services
lol. lmao, even.
Why such cynicism? Regulators have historically been one of the few meaningful checks on capital.
Why such cynicism?
Look, I dont mean any ill-will or disrespect to you, but I don't see how you can look around yourself and ask another human why they might be showing signs of cynicism.
I put it to you that there are, deliberately, no meaningful checks on capital.
Signs of cynicism are great; the reasons for cynicism are obvious. But there is a big gap between healthy cynicism and the blackpilled doomerism that you are displaying.
Regulations give us the weekend and overtime pay. Regulations control how much rat shit is allowed in your food. Regulations make it so your workplace isn't a deathtrap. Those are all meaningful checks on capital.
Labor leaders fought in the streets, killed cops, and died for regulations.
Until political scientists invent self-enforcing regulations, there will be humans doing it, and there is an obvious conflict of interest in having this particular human be responsible for this particular issue.
Look up "regulatory capture" sometime.
Regulations are just a tool and all tools can be misused. I'm definitely not here to suggest regulations are perfect or that they can solve all of our problems.
It feels like an insult to myself and the audience to assume that we aren't all aware of regulatory capture.
I apologize, didn't intend to come off as insulting. Your top level comment demonstrates awareness for sure but your subsequent ones read to me as written by someone who doesn't, they give me a very "end of history vibes," as if the very examples you cite aren't being degraded and hollowed out in real time before our eyes. not apologizing for assuming the audience isn't aware of regulatory capture. I find it odd you'd assume the opposite tbh.
I think at the very least we disagree on the definition of "black pilled doomerism," in the context of responding to this news, but to be frank that's not a discussion I'm interested in having presently.
The examples I cited are being degraded and hollowed out before our eyes. That should give us even more reason to attempt to safeguard them.
Maybe I'm naive for being a bit hopeful, but I'm no Fukuyama. I understand that the system is crumbling, and that the core of the system is irredeemable.
None of that changes the fact that regulations like the Clean Air Act are a good thing. Yes, it should have done more to regulate coal emissions. Yes, it was unilaterally dismantled by Trump. It is still a good thing; nihilism on this subject is counter productive; and that is really my entire thesis here.