Uma crítica à ideia de que os grandes modelos de linguagem (LLMs) poderiam substituir o debate público na busca por consensos. O autor cita uma pesquisa do Google e um aplicativo que se baseiam nessa promessa, e diz que a premissa é falha:
Um trechinho:
The Google researchers assert that “finding common ground is a precursor to collective action, in which people work together for the common good” and believe their LLM can help expedite the production of that common ground. But it may be that the process of producing the common ground (and not simply the agreed-upon tenets) is what makes the subsequent working together possible. The deliberative process, protracted as it may be, models what “working together” consists of, and the kinds of trust, compromise, and conflict resolution that will continue to be required to make progress. Or, as Azuma characterizes this position (en route to rejecting it), “what is important for democracy is not that everyone’s will is gathered but that each will is transformed through the process of consolidating those wills.”