I would love to hear how legislators actually respond to the AI generated letters. To me, they are too long and word salad-y and almost scream " i am AI"! On the one hand, i have always heard that legislators assistants dont read letters anyway ( beyond the point where they can check off if its a yes or no) so i guess alot of pablum doesn't really matter. But i feel like i can write a shorter and pithier summary than AI that might actually get read. Do you have any data on whether the obligate mining of rare minerals and demand for ( soon to be) nuclear electricity is really worth it? Do lawmakers actually listen to AI generated letters?(they seem just a step up from signing online petitions to me)
An excerpt from my soon-to-be-published book, State Legislatures: An Owner's Manual:
A computer-generated email is the "lowest of the low" method of communication anyone can send. Political action groups promote these emails by getting their followers to enter their names and other information into boxes on a website and click a button to generate an email from them to legislators for or against an issue.
Legislators get computer-generated emails all the time, and it's pretty evident that they are computer-generated because, on the same day, they will receive scores of emails with the exact text urging a yes or no vote on the same bill. Some of these emails still include computer-generated code or blank spaces in the middle of sentences, where the sender's name or some other personal reference was supposed to be inserted by the computer program but was not. These computer-generated emails are even more meaningless when they omit the sender's street address, suggesting that rather than getting an email from a constituent, the legislator could be getting one from someone across the country or around the world.
However, AI technology may soon be able to disguise mass computer-generated emails by rewording them in a personalized manner. So, just as activist gamed the Arizona Request to Speak System by signing up people all over the country to inundate it with orchestrated comments for and against bills, so too will AI make personal constituent emails less genuine and believable in the eyes of legislators.
I sent a few AI generated letters today, which I wasn’t crazy about so I added my own paragraph at the beginning, changed some and deleted some of the language. It’s too cold. No passion. Thanks for plugging your book. Good luck with that.
An excerpt from my soon-to-be-published book, State Legislatures: An Owner's Manual:
A computer-generated email is the "lowest of the low" method of communication anyone can send. Political action groups promote these emails by getting their followers to enter their names and other information into boxes on a website and click a button to generate an email from them to legislators for or against an issue.
Legislators get computer-generated emails all the time, and it's pretty apparent that they are computer-generated because, on the same day, they will receive scores of emails with the exact text urging a yes or no vote on the same bill. Some of these emails still include computer-generated code or blank spaces in the middle of sentences, where the sender's name or some other personal reference was supposed to be inserted by the computer program but was not. These computer-generated emails are even more meaningless when they omit the sender's street address, suggesting that rather than getting an email from a constituent, the legislator could be getting one from someone across the country or around the world.
However, AI technology may soon be able to disguise mass computer-generated emails by rewording them in a personalized manner. So, just as activist gamed the Arizona Request to Speak System by signing up people all over the country to inundate it with orchestrated comments for and against bills, so too will AI make personal constituent emails less genuine and believable in the eyes of legislators.
Neighborhood associations are also against the bill to let churches build as they like in communities without consideration for existing regulations or long established neighborhoods. Churches should have no special privileges. If they can, other 501 (c) 3's should be able to also. Churches have shown no special abilities to do well - see child abuse scandal, see financial scandals, see boarding school scandal. It's giving special privileges in land use policy on a myth and disregarding people. It's a developers wet dream.
I was iffy on that one too. Zoning laws are important for many reasons. Blaming cities and towns for the Az legislators and Doug Ducey for allowing STR (short term rentals) to destroy neighborhood communities with no individual regulations is a foul ball. The entire world has bought into this scam and tourists love them but neighborhoods have a different quality and forcing zoning changes will pile on to the disassociation neighbors already feel.
I would love to hear how legislators actually respond to the AI generated letters. To me, they are too long and word salad-y and almost scream " i am AI"! On the one hand, i have always heard that legislators assistants dont read letters anyway ( beyond the point where they can check off if its a yes or no) so i guess alot of pablum doesn't really matter. But i feel like i can write a shorter and pithier summary than AI that might actually get read. Do you have any data on whether the obligate mining of rare minerals and demand for ( soon to be) nuclear electricity is really worth it? Do lawmakers actually listen to AI generated letters?(they seem just a step up from signing online petitions to me)
An excerpt from my soon-to-be-published book, State Legislatures: An Owner's Manual:
A computer-generated email is the "lowest of the low" method of communication anyone can send. Political action groups promote these emails by getting their followers to enter their names and other information into boxes on a website and click a button to generate an email from them to legislators for or against an issue.
Legislators get computer-generated emails all the time, and it's pretty evident that they are computer-generated because, on the same day, they will receive scores of emails with the exact text urging a yes or no vote on the same bill. Some of these emails still include computer-generated code or blank spaces in the middle of sentences, where the sender's name or some other personal reference was supposed to be inserted by the computer program but was not. These computer-generated emails are even more meaningless when they omit the sender's street address, suggesting that rather than getting an email from a constituent, the legislator could be getting one from someone across the country or around the world.
However, AI technology may soon be able to disguise mass computer-generated emails by rewording them in a personalized manner. So, just as activist gamed the Arizona Request to Speak System by signing up people all over the country to inundate it with orchestrated comments for and against bills, so too will AI make personal constituent emails less genuine and believable in the eyes of legislators.
All very valid points, but are they ‘counted’ in any way?
I sent a few AI generated letters today, which I wasn’t crazy about so I added my own paragraph at the beginning, changed some and deleted some of the language. It’s too cold. No passion. Thanks for plugging your book. Good luck with that.
An excerpt from my soon-to-be-published book, State Legislatures: An Owner's Manual:
A computer-generated email is the "lowest of the low" method of communication anyone can send. Political action groups promote these emails by getting their followers to enter their names and other information into boxes on a website and click a button to generate an email from them to legislators for or against an issue.
Legislators get computer-generated emails all the time, and it's pretty apparent that they are computer-generated because, on the same day, they will receive scores of emails with the exact text urging a yes or no vote on the same bill. Some of these emails still include computer-generated code or blank spaces in the middle of sentences, where the sender's name or some other personal reference was supposed to be inserted by the computer program but was not. These computer-generated emails are even more meaningless when they omit the sender's street address, suggesting that rather than getting an email from a constituent, the legislator could be getting one from someone across the country or around the world.
However, AI technology may soon be able to disguise mass computer-generated emails by rewording them in a personalized manner. So, just as activist gamed the Arizona Request to Speak System by signing up people all over the country to inundate it with orchestrated comments for and against bills, so too will AI make personal constituent emails less genuine and believable in the eyes of legislators.
State Senator John Kavanagh
Senator,
Thank you for giving us a taste of the multiple emails with identical wording. Point taken.
Neighborhood associations are also against the bill to let churches build as they like in communities without consideration for existing regulations or long established neighborhoods. Churches should have no special privileges. If they can, other 501 (c) 3's should be able to also. Churches have shown no special abilities to do well - see child abuse scandal, see financial scandals, see boarding school scandal. It's giving special privileges in land use policy on a myth and disregarding people. It's a developers wet dream.
I was iffy on that one too. Zoning laws are important for many reasons. Blaming cities and towns for the Az legislators and Doug Ducey for allowing STR (short term rentals) to destroy neighborhood communities with no individual regulations is a foul ball. The entire world has bought into this scam and tourists love them but neighborhoods have a different quality and forcing zoning changes will pile on to the disassociation neighbors already feel.
Could not agree more.