> <i>One step is to stop creating entitlements that are ripe for AI-fuelled claims. Britain’s Employment Rights Act and Renters’ Rights Act open avenues of legal challenge for workers and tenants. Not only are they misguided, but ministers put little thought into how they would burden the courts.</i><p>Is the Economist seriously suggesting we should roll back workers and renters rights because AI makes it too easy for the average Joe to actually get those rights?<p>> <i>Rather than just handling locals’ objections, a new Ai-driven planning system could decide for itself whether a housing development meets a zoning code. Rather than processing benefits claims, it could devise personalised welfare interventions.</i><p>And this sounds like it's going to work just <i>grrrreat</i>.
> Is the Economist seriously suggesting we should roll back workers and renters rights because AI makes it too easy for the average Joe to actually get those rights?<p>Yes, both of these pieces of legislation are extremely badly designed feel-good nonsense, which I personally hope will be shown to be so by an avalanche of claims automated by AI.<p>The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge.
Does “The final decision is made by a judge” mean “workers rights can ultimately be arbitrated by a judge when escalated”, or “judges arbitrate all workers rights complaints”? If the former, i believe that’s reasonable; if the latter, thats nuts - and I might not balk at a statement like yours (“abolishes…”).
>The employment rights legislation we have at the moment literally abolishes the market for labour - the final decision as to if your salary is "fair" is made by a judge.<p>Can you explain this? I can't find anything on this from a quick google. Employment rights act seems to say very little about salary beyond the minimum wage.
<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo</a><p>The judge decided that, despite prices suggesting otherwise, the two types of labour here were the same.
Ah, I see, an argument that there was gender discrimination in pay for 'equal value' jobs despite the actual job being different. I agree this decision seems like a bit of a strange reach, but it's far from saying it abolishes the market for labor entirely.<p>(Also, this is more part of the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that is in pretty dire need of redrafting for a bunch of other reasons, as opposed to the Employment Rights Act)
Scrooge would probably agree wholeheartedly.<p>The reality is that curtailment of abusive zero hours contracts provided by the employment rights legislation was <i>direly</i> needed and renters desperately needed protection against landlords who would habitually jack up rents and kick you out.<p>These are probably the only two good bits of legislation done in the last few years.<p>The renters rights act has led to buy to let landlords selling up all over leading to a decline in property prices. It's hardly feel good - it means first time buyers can get on the property ladder easier and renters cant be kicked out as easily.
Yes the economist is arguing that. Most of the rights of this sort were granted under the assumption that most people eligible for the rights would not be able to actually get them. If they can get them, that will be extremely inconvenient for politicians who will have to deal with a large deficit, by either cutting back rights or raising taxes on the wealthy, both of which are career suicide for a politician.
The article is suggesting that there was an assumed dynamic in designing these mechanisms for petitions and claims - that there is a threshold of cost (time and effort, mostly) that the petitioner is willing to pay for petitioning the government, and that this cost is, at least to some extent, minimizing frivolous or "lets try it even if it's a long shot" claims.<p>When the cost of such claims goes to zero, that assumed dynamic will no longer work.
> Is the Economist seriously suggesting we should roll back workers and renters rights because AI makes it too easy for the average Joe to actually get those rights?<p>I don't know about the Economist nor about the UK, but in the USA most programs that could benefit the poor are specifically designed to have very onerous processes to qualify and requalify with the intention of discouraging people from applying and to reduce success rate in obtaining the benefit they are on paper qualified to receive.
the economist is in the market for plausible-sounding prose. much like a large language model, the substance of the argument is a side effect.
A lot of "rights" were created with the assumption that they would be used sparingly and would never have been enacted if everyone was going to use them. You just don't have a working civilization if everyone is collecting disability, renters don't pay rent, and nothing can be built.
No : rights were put in place because poor people struggled to get them ; the governments then placed hurdle to "control" expenses. On garanteeing housing, the only thing that works to get people out of the streets is state controlled housing. But maybe getting things built is more important ?
The problem then doesn't have to do with AI specifically, it requires human intervention and vetting. If the problem is "someone submitted an AI-written request that got rubberstamped", the problem is the stamp, not the AI.<p>Interesting, your observation on societal structures changing is very close to mine regarding laws: A lot of "laws" were created with the assumption that they would be applied as warranted by circumstances, and I think universal AI surveillance and perfect enforcement of laws will be a huge problem in the coming age.
It's not a binary. If you expect to receive 90 meritorious complaints and 10 bad ones, a review procedure with no false negatives and 10% false positives will give you the wrong outcome 1% of the time. You might be OK with that depending on the cost of a false positive. But if the rise of AI means you get 100 meritorious complaints and 100 bad ones, and you apply the same process, now your processing costs have doubled and your error rate has quintupled.
There's neither a right nor a "right" for everyone to collect disability, to not pay rent, and to stop anyone from building.<p>The British state is being flooded with requests for things that people are actually entitled to, but enough administrative hurdles were intentionally placed in the way of to make sure that no one would get.
I think that's basically true, but the barriers exist because the state can't realistically afford a 100% take-up rate. Adding friction means people who don't really need say the extra £100 a month often won't bother with the hassle, while people who genuinely need it are more likely to decide it's worth the effort.<p>Obviously that's a very messed up and broken system. I'm not defending it at all.
That would be on brand for The Economist.
I think of the legal system in the US. It's easy to find statements about how the entire legal system would collapse if people stopped taking plea bargains because nothing is actually funded or operated in a way that actually guarantees the right to trial in any practical way.
[dead]
The function of the bureaucracy in this context is a filter for effort. It naturally filters out people who don't care enough to battle through the bullshit, which is arguably quite an effective way to distribute limited resources to the public.<p>In general, our economy relies a lot on these natural filters for effort. A company with a nice website doesn't necessarily mean the company is good, except historically it kind of does, because it's a proxy for effort (and budget), both of which correlate roughly with reputability and a good product.<p>The same applies to well-written blog post: typically, a very good writer generally is also someone with something interesting to say, even though in theory the two things don't have to be connected.<p>Similarly, the entire moat of many companies is that switching to a competitor is a lot of effort.<p>AI is effectively sending the effort required to do any of these things to zero, which means all our existing implicit filters are going to stop working.
How many PMs has Britain gone through in the past decade?<p>As usual, not really sure blaming AI is a useful way to understand the problem. British politics has felt "broken" since <i>at least</i> Cameron's failed bet on Brexit.
I have great confidence in the capacity of the British state to ignore any possible volume of petitions for the redress of grievances, and to carry on.
From another country but this is the excuse they use here with some paraphasing. "We have decided not to proceed with your complaint ... It looks like your complaint was generated by AI, it is large in volume and confusing. This is the final decision." This was after confirming every single law was valid, referenced, previous case history also properly referenced, added our points, etc. The funny thing is that they only mentioned AI use as a reason to terminate the investigation after many back and forward emails discussing points that they could understand quite well and we pushed back on. Our last response proved beyond a doubt that the opposite party (also another government department) lied to them. For another complaint for a another government agency straight away told us not use AI and use simple words and not to quote the law as that is not how its done in this country. However, we won that one right before telling them we would self represent in court after many back and forward emails with them saying don't use AI each time.<p>From what I see multiple government departments are already pushing back from people using AI when dealing with the government. I understand the dynamics, if the cost of exercising your rights go down, more people do it and their budgets cannot cope. However, you then abuse the rights of the citizens. Regulations are designed to protect the most vocal people or the wealthy. The most vocal people can start a revolution (or get another party elected) so need to please them while the wealthy are the ones in power. I don't know how this will play out.
> British state to ignore any possible volume of petitions<p>Do you live under a rock?
If the government is stupid enough to write law that it cannot enforce when applied by all citizens (and not only those with means), then we should welcome anything which will bring about the demise of those laws.
<a href="https://archive.is/IDptA" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/IDptA</a>
The peasants have lawyers now?! No! Must be banned!
> Yet it threatens to become a tragedy of the commons. If the state is overwhelmed and cannot function, everyone loses. When 20th-century governments created broad rights, they had the noble ideal of making citizenship meaningful. The public would be heard in consultations, get information under transparency laws and win redress for maladministration from a panoply of ombudsmen, tribunals, commissioners and judges. But these analogue systems assumed that few people would have the time or temperament to pursue their rights to the bitter end; and that of those who did, few would have the money to pay for a lawyer.<p>The Economist is angry because current processes were only supposed to supply the appearance of justice, but wear down anyone who wasn't a full time employee working on someone else's behalf.