Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Munyaradzi Mafaro, post: 31868, member: 636"] The Gambian Foreign Minister spoke at a meeting about computer brains in Morocco. He warned us that these smart machines might hurt peace if we use them wrong. He wants clear rules for how we handle these tools, plus better teamwork between business leaders and the government. We must help Africa keep up with new tech changes. Leaders across the world agree we need rules for these smart systems. They see them as more than future dreams - these tools shape our lives right now. They help doctors save lives, make companies run better, and help government workers do their jobs faster. Our lawmakers face big changes from these smart systems. The machines help write laws, check facts during talks, and make work easier. Yet, we must ask how human thinking fits with machine help. In The Gambia, staff members already use these smart programs without any official plans. They search through law books, sum up hard topics, and check what people think about new rules. The programs type up what people say in meetings, make reports, and fix law papers. These tools make work go faster, but many worry about mistakes or letting computers do too much work without human checks. We must remember that these smart systems differ from human minds. They find patterns in numbers but lack real thinking skills. They miss the heart of problems, the struggles of real people, and the messy parts of life. Law-making needs balance, tough choices, and thinking about what might go wrong. These things need human brains. Smart machines may suggest ideas, sum up talks, or show numbers, but they miss how rules affect real lives. They stay tools, not decision makers. If we trust them blindly, we risk making laws that miss the point of helping real people. These smart systems help lawmakers across the world do better work. They search through law books fast, find problems in new rules, learn from other countries, and suggest better ways to write laws. During heated talks, they can check facts right away, which stops false claims. They also track what citizens say online about issues, helping lawmakers know what people want. Plus, they help translate laws into many languages. More places will use these tools as they improve, making government work clearer and faster for everyone. Different countries use these tools in their own ways. British lawmakers use them to find trends but stay careful about fully trusting computers. Brazil tried robot helpers that answer citizen questions, but these helpers sometimes gave wrong answers based on bad data. Estonia uses programs called KrattAI that help write laws but keep humans in charge of the final choices. These cases show that smart systems can help make laws better if we watch them closely and keep people in control of big decisions. We face risks if we trust these smart tools without limits. They miss the human parts of law-making like feelings, talks between people, and finding the middle ground. Smart systems look at numbers but miss history and culture. They might suggest tearing down old buildings for new ones without seeing how this hurts communities. Human lawmakers think about history, ethics, and how people will feel about changes. The machines learn from past data, which often has unfair ideas inside. This means they might suggest rules that hurt some groups more than others. These systems sometimes make up false facts. If lawmakers use the wrong information, they create bad laws that hurt people. Humans must check everything these systems say. Smart machines also lack the moral thinking needed for good laws. Making laws needs compromise, deep thinking about right and wrong, and careful thought about long-term effects. All these need human minds. Bad people might use these tools to control others, push their views, or block other ideas. This would weaken free speech and fair debate, which keeps democracy healthy. Lawmakers need clear rules for using these smart helpers wisely. Every computer suggestion must face careful review by human experts. The machines can show data, find patterns, and offer ideas but cannot replace human judgment, moral thinking, or lived experience. Human review stops us from blindly trusting what computers say. One police system in the United States unfairly targeted minority groups because its data had bias inside. By keeping humans in charge, we can use the helpful parts of smart systems without letting their problems harm people. We need special training for lawmakers about these computer systems. They must learn how these tools work, what limits they have, and what hidden problems might exist. Without this knowledge, lawmakers might trust computer answers without asking enough questions. Training should help them see both the strengths and weaknesses of these systems. The British Parliament held classes for lawmakers about these tools in 2018. This helped them make better choices about when to use smart systems and when to rely on human thinking instead. These smart systems can make government work better by saving time, finding information faster, and cutting through red tape. But they should never push aside human judgment, moral thinking, and deep knowledge of how things connect. Smart machines see the world through strict data only, but real governing deals with messy, surprising situations deeply tied to history and culture. We must see these systems as helpful assistants, not independent lawmakers. The future needs both - smart tools that support humans making wise, caring, and responsible decisions based on deep human values. [/QUOTE]

Name