[dead]
Ask HN: Any good tools for viewing congressional bills?
41–44 of 44 posts
Re: Ask HN: Any good tools for viewing congressional bills?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to imagine a non-technical user asking the AI a question and implicitly trusting the response as factual, without understanding anything about hallucinations.
How do you figure out if the whole or part of the response is a hallucination?
Get a law degree. Then read the entire text word for word?
Re: Ask HN: Any good tools for viewing congressional bills?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really great. Reading the bill raw feels like reviewing a diff with context set to 0.
What I find most frustrating are the bills written as prose-diffs themselves: "In some entirely different piece of law, Foo shall be inserted after Bar, with an overall effect and purpose which will not be described here."
One of my friends is a public health lobbyist and she is used to having to explain to stakeholders that THIS formatting mark in the PDF means they're adding text but THAT formatting mark means they're deleting text. It's not immediately obvious and every state has its own way of presenting information. I'd argue that DC does it best, but I haven't looked at every legislature.
Re: Ask HN: Any good tools for viewing congressional bills?
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without commenting on the merits of that idea, I'll just say that I do not want to be the one who has to moderate user generated content.
Only if it is shared annotations is it a problem. It need not be shared , think more like a public notion/ share point document with comments visible . I.e experts(users) can create their own individual annotated versions and share with others . As long as there is no single version of the annotations , moderation is not needed
I think the issue is that a person reading without an interlocutor has a better chance of getting some truth from the sum of the bill than reading with an “expert” bent on swaying them towards a fringe interpretation or even directly lying to distort the content. The feature lets them put on an air of factuality but really just inveigle people with a chopped take on a document.