Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

In Defense of ‘AI Mark’

Opinion

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

Earlier this week, a member of the UK Parliament—Mark Sewards—released an AI tool (named “AI Mark”) to assist with constituent inquiries. The public response was rapid and rage-filled. Some people demanded that the member of Parliament (MP) forfeit part of his salary—he's doing less work, right? Others called for his resignation—they didn't vote for AI; they voted for him! Many more simply questioned his thinking—why on earth did he think outsourcing such sensitive tasks to AI would be greeted with applause?

He's not the only elected official under fire for AI use. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, recently admitted to using AI to study various proposals before casting votes. Swedes, like the Brits, have bombarded Kristersson with howls of outrage.


I'll bite and attempt to defend “AI Mark” specifically and the use of AI by elected officials more generally.

Let's start with “AI Mark.” While I understand public frustration around the seemingly hasty adoption of AI into a key government service, my research suggests that those ready to remove Sewards from office are failing to ask a key question: what's the alternative?

"AI Mark" was designed specifically to make up for Sewards' inability to meaningfully respond to manifold constituent inquiries. According to Sewards, he has "tried [his] best to sit at [his] desk and answer all the requests that come through on [his] laptop, but it’s not possible for one person to do that." "AI Mark,” on the other hand, can analyze such requests around the clock. That said, constituents want more than merely to be heard (or read); they're reaching out for some affirmative action by the MP. So, can "AI Mark" help with that?

My hunch is yes. Constituent work is hard. It's arguably the most important role for elected officials. Yet, it's also one of the least appreciated and one of the hardest to do well. Done right, constituent services performs at least three functions: first, it ensures individuals can get through complex bureaucracies; second, it surfaces emerging issues that warrant broader attention; and, third, it directs the elected official to prioritize issues that are most relevant to their communities.

Speaking from my experience as a former intern to a U.S. Senator, I can testify to the fact that "AI Mark" is likely an improvement upon the alternative of either a small army of undergraduate interns pouring over those constituent requests or the elected official themself attempting to do so.

Finding substantive constituent inquiries is no easy task. For every one person reaching out for support on a substantive matter, there are likely dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of duplicative or irrelevant submissions. Hundreds of people may send identical letters urging a vote on a certain issue—a human is not necessary to read each of those; AI can quickly consolidate such letters. Other submissions may involve demands that exceed the authority of the office. There's little need for a human to confirm that the MP, senator, or representative does not have jurisdiction over that request. AI can do that with a high degree of accuracy in a fraction of the time. AI can then quickly filter through the flood of requests that likely do not merit much attention. The elected official and their staff can use that saved time to more promptly take action on the remainder. That's a win for everyone.

With respect to PM Kristersson and the use of AI for research, a similar defense can be raised. Elected officials are often short on time to do research on every issue that comes before their desk. In some cases, they will get a briefing from their staff explaining the pros and cons of that decision. Such analysis may not be high-quality. There’s the possibility that the staffer thinks they know how the official wants to vote or should vote and, therefore, biases their report. There’s also high odds of that staffer being taxed for their time themselves and, consequently, producing an incomplete or inaccurate report. Finally, there’s the possibility of the staffer using AI to do the task! Sophisticated AI tools such as OpenAI’s DeepResearch can scour the internet for relevant sources and information in a matter of minutes; it would be strange if a policy researcher failed to make use of this tool to supplement their analysis. What’s the harm of the PM simply skipping to this final step?

The harm in this case, as well as the case of "AI Mark," is a lack of transparency and engagement. Clandestine use of AI is almost always going to incite public unrest. Folks like to know how and why their elected officials are working on their behalf. The answer, however, is not to prevent or oppose the use of AI in policymaking but rather to make sure such use is out in the open and subject to regular review.


Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.

Read More

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy
Getty Images

Fear of AI Makes for Bad Policy

Fear is the worst possible response to AI. Actions taken out of fear are rarely a good thing, especially when it comes to emerging technology. Empirically-driven scrutiny, on the other hand, is a savvy and necessary reaction to technologies like AI that introduce great benefits and harms. The difference is allowing emotions to drive policy rather than ongoing and rigorous evaluation.

A few reminders of tech policy gone wrong, due, at least in part, to fear, helps make this point clear. Fear is what has led the US to become a laggard in nuclear energy, while many of our allies and adversaries enjoy cheaper, more reliable energy. Fear is what explains opposition to autonomous vehicles in some communities, while human drivers are responsible for 120 deaths per day, as of 2022. Fear is what sustains delays in making drones more broadly available, even though many other countries are tackling issues like rural access to key medicine via drones.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looking at a smartphone.

With autism rates doubling every decade, scientists are reexamining environmental and behavioral factors. Could the explosion of social media use since the 1990s be influencing neurodevelopment? A closer look at the data, the risks, and what research must uncover next.

Getty Images, Arindam Ghosh

The Increase in Autism and Social Media – Coincidence or Causal?

Autism has been in the headlines recently because of controversy over Robert F. Kennedy, Jr's statements. But forgetting about Kennedy, autism is headline-worthy because of the huge increase in its incidence over the past two decades and its potential impact on not just the individual children but the health and strength of our country.

In the 1990s, a new definition of autism—ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder)—was universally adopted. Initially, the prevalence rate was pretty stable. In the year 2,000, with this broader definition and better diagnosis, the CDC estimated that one in 150 eight-year-olds in the U.S. had an autism spectrum disorder. (The reports always study eight-year-olds, so this data was for children born in 1992.)

Keep ReadingShow less
Tech, Tribalism, and the Erosion of Human Connection
Ai technology, Artificial Intelligence. man using technology smart robot AI, artificial intelligence by enter command prompt for generates something, Futuristic technology transformation.
Getty Images - stock photo

Tech, Tribalism, and the Erosion of Human Connection

One of the great gifts of the Enlightenment age was the centrality of reason and empiricism as instruments to unleash the astonishing potential of human capacity. Great Enlightenment thinkers recognized that human beings have the capacity to observe the universe and rely on logical thinking to solve problems.

Moreover, these were not just lofty ideals; Benjamin Franklin and Denis Diderot demonstrated that building our collective constitution of knowledge could greatly enhance human prosperity not only for the aristocratic class but for all participants in the social contract. Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” and Diderot and d’Alembert’s “Encyclopédie” served as the Enlightenment’s machines de guerre, effectively providing broad access to practical knowledge, empowering individuals to build their own unique brand of prosperity.

Keep ReadingShow less
The limits of free speech protections in American broadcasting

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr testifies in Washington on May 21, 2025.

The limits of free speech protections in American broadcasting

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is displeased with a broadcast network. He makes his displeasure clear in public speeches, interviews and congressional testimony.

The network, afraid of the regulatory agency’s power to license their owned-and-operated stations, responds quickly. They change the content of their broadcasts. Network executives understand the FCC’s criticism is supported by the White House, and the chairman implicitly represents the president.

Keep ReadingShow less