Introduction to the Controversial Use of AI in Legislation
Last week, Morena representative Olga Leticia Chávez Rojas openly admitted to casting her vote on the draft of the General Law of the National Security System without fully reading it. She justified her actions by stating that she used ChatGPT to obtain a brief summary of the proposal, basing her vote on this condensed information. In response to public scrutiny and criticism from the opposition, Chávez Rojas defended her actions with a dismissive “Catch up, ignoramuses,” seemingly unaware of the gravity of her confession. The incident raises concerns about using artificial intelligence (AI) for crucial legislative decisions impacting the human rights of over 126 million Mexicans.
The Risks and Irresponsibility of Using AI in Legislative Processes
While artificial intelligence (AI) can be a valuable tool in many aspects of human life, its application in this context poses significant risks. Laws cannot be applied in a summarized manner; they must be considered in their entirety to ensure fairness and accuracy. In Mexico, each article, clause, and punctuation mark in a legal document can influence the interpretation and application of the law, affecting the rights of those it governs.
Imagine if Chávez Rojas had used ChatGPT to summarize the Telecommunications and Radio Broadcasting Law’s draft, potentially overlooking Article 109 that arbitrarily censured digital platforms. The representation of the people and preservation of their rights would then depend on ChatGPT’s algorithms. Furthermore, one must question the legitimacy of votes cast under such circumstances by legislators, as their consent based on partial or inaccurate information—as can occur with AI use—raises serious concerns about the validity of their decisions.
ChatGPT’s Terms of Use and Legal Implications
It is worth noting that ChatGPT’s current terms of use explicitly warn users that the service’s results “may not always be accurate” and should not be relied upon as the sole source of truth or a substitute for professional advice. Moreover, users are prohibited from using the service for any purpose that could have legal consequences, such as credit, educational, labor, housing, insurance, legal, medical, or other significant decisions. Approving the General Law of the National Security System draft clearly falls under these “important decisions” that OpenAI aimed to prevent with this warning.
The terms also state that users cannot employ the service in a way that violates anyone’s rights. Thus, Chávez Rojas’ use of AI to inform her vote on a critical security law appears both risky and irresponsible, potentially undermining the legislative process.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the controversy surrounding Olga Leticia Chávez Rojas’ actions? Chávez Rojas admitted to voting on the draft of the General Law of the National Security System without fully reading it, instead relying on a summary generated by ChatGPT. Critics argue this is irresponsible and poses risks to the legislative process.
- Why is using AI for legal summaries problematic? Laws cannot be applied in a summarized manner; each detail can significantly impact interpretation and application. Relying on AI for crucial legislative decisions may lead to inaccurate or incomplete information, jeopardizing the rights of those affected by the laws.
- What do ChatGPT’s terms of use say about legal applications? ChatGPT’s terms explicitly warn against using its results for any purpose with legal consequences, such as making significant decisions. Users are prohibited from employing the service in a way that violates anyone’s rights.
- How does Chávez Rojas’ actions reflect on her responsibilities as a legislator? Her reliance on AI for a critical security law vote suggests she may not be fulfilling her public duties as intended, raising concerns about her commitment to thoroughly understanding and considering legislative proposals.
