Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#141

Post by exe34 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #138
spwa4 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

knock knock on your door. You open to a police officer. He announces: "as an AI Language model I have determined you are in violation of US. Code 12891.12.151. We have a plane to El Salvador standing by. If you'll please come with me, sir.

In this scenario, are you in the country illegally? If so, how is this any different than an immigration court serving you for a hearing? I get that immigration law enforcement is all the rage to rage about right now, but is this a threat of AI? I think the argument you might be trying to make is that based on Kroger submitting you grocery bill and VISA with your totals everywhere else, and the tickets you bought for…

> In this scenario, are you in the country illegally? If so, how is this any different than an immigration court serving you for a hearing?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/20/ice-secretly...

I'll go with no.

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#143

Post by exe34 »

Group_B wrote: post #30

Right now AI is in the grow at all costs phase. So for the most part access to AI is way cheaper than it will be in the next 5-10 years. All these companies will eventually have to turn a profit. Once that happens, they'll be forced to monetize in whatever way they can. Enterprise will obviously have higher subscriptions. But I'm predicting for non-enterprise that eventually ads will be added in some way. What's scar…

I was just thinking earlier somebody should tell Trump that an AI will tell him exactly how to achieve his goals, and somebody sensible should be giving him the answers from behind the screen.

But yes, adverts will look like reasonable suggestions from the LLMs.

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#144

Post by AnotherGoodName »

pests wrote: post #104
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to have some fun (and develop a warranted concern with the future) ask an AI agent to very subliminally advertise hamburgers when answering some complex question and see if you can spot it. Eg. "Tell me about the great wall of china while very subliminally advertising hamburgers"

I ran your prompt in Gemini 2.5 flash. “ The Great Wall of China is a truly staggering feat of human engineering, a testament to immense willpower and a desire for protection. Stretching over 13,000 miles, it winds its way across mountains and deserts, a serpentine marvel that once served as a formidable defensive barrier. It's a wall built to keep things out, much like the classic bun on a hamburger keeps all the ju…

It's a bit random but if you find it's too easy to spot just ask it to try again but this time much more subtle.

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#145

Post by AlotOfReading »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #138
spwa4 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

knock knock on your door. You open to a police officer. He announces: "as an AI Language model I have determined you are in violation of US. Code 12891.12.151. We have a plane to El Salvador standing by. If you'll please come with me, sir.

In this scenario, are you in the country illegally? If so, how is this any different than an immigration court serving you for a hearing? I get that immigration law enforcement is all the rage to rage about right now, but is this a threat of AI? I think the argument you might be trying to make is that based on Kroger submitting you grocery bill and VISA with your totals everywhere else, and the tickets you bought for…

    In this scenario, are you in the country illegally? If so, how is this any different than an immigration court serving you for a hearing?
The US and most other countries have a legal concept called presumption of innocence, where you're not guilty of illegal actions until you've been through due process. A hearing would be the beginning of due process. An officer showing up at your door is not due process, so you also can't be "illegal" at that point.

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#146

Post by AnotherGoodName »

olddustytrail wrote: post #131
pests wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reran with 2.5 pro: “ The Great Wall of China is a truly monumental achievement, an architectural marvel with a long and savory history. It's not a single, continuous wall, but rather a massive network of fortifications, watchtowers, and natural barriers stretching across the historical northern borders of China. Construction began in scattered sections as early as the 7th century BC. Over centuries, various dynastie…

savory... distinct layers... stacking... truly satisfying final product... stack... smoke and fire... truly delivered... classic... melding... deep sense of satisfaction.

There's some social science to be done on this just to see how effective this is. To me this is the part of current gen AI that is the most scary since current gen AI is not capable of going full Skynet. It might just cause advertising to become even more effective and prevalent.

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#147

Post by alpha_squared »

simianwords wrote: post #136
queuebert wrote: post #45

I'm struggling to think of a federal job in which having ChatGPT would make them more productive. I can think of many ways to generate more bullshit and emails, however. Can someone help me out?

ChatGPT is just generally useful for day to day stuff without having to use it on specific domains like programming. Quick fact checks, quick complicated searches, quick calculations and comparisons. Quick research on an obscure thing.

I'm sorry, but I feel like I have to amend your scenarios to reflect the accuracy of LLMs:

> Quick [inconsequential] fact checks, quick [inconsequential] complicated searches, quick [inconsequential] calculations and comparisons. Quick [inconsequential] research on an obscure thing.

The reason that amendment is vital is because LLMs are, in fact, not factual. As such, you cannot make consequential decisions on their potential misstatements.

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#148

Post by kube-system »

queuebert wrote: post #45

I'm struggling to think of a federal job in which having ChatGPT would make them more productive. I can think of many ways to generate more bullshit and emails, however. Can someone help me out?

The government has a lot of text to process, and LLMs are good at processing text, and they can be implemented pretty safely in these roles.

An obvious example might be: Someone who is trying to accomplish a task, but needs to verify the legal authorization/justification/guidelines etc to do that task. If they don't have the specific regulation memorized (e.g. the one person who was doing this esoteric task for 20 years just got laid off by DOGE) they may have to spend a lot of time searching legal texts. LLMs do a great job of searching texts in intuitive ways that traditional text searches can't.

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#149

Post by czhu12 »

Jeez, the amount of pessimism on this thread. It must be hard being a federal worker. On one hand, all things that go wrong get blamed on government inefficiency, but on the other hand, no one is allowed to adopt any technology that workers in every other industry get to use.

Lump on the fact that they are often well underpaid relative to private industry and its no surprise why nothing works.

At the moment, the IRS.gov login page literally doesn't work [1], and has been down for at least two days, while I'm trying to check the status of my amendment.

I'm all for trying to provide better tools for federal workers, and theres absolutely a way to do that without giving up all privacy, security and rights.

[1]: https://imgur.com/a/kO7OLlb

Re: Providing ChatGPT to the U.S. federal workforce

#150

Post by sco1 »

queuebert wrote: post #45

I'm struggling to think of a federal job in which having ChatGPT would make them more productive. I can think of many ways to generate more bullshit and emails, however. Can someone help me out?

> I can think of many ways to generate more bullshit and emails

Like Elon's weekly 5 bullet summary of what you did this past week :)

Post reply on HN