From the article:

"Free, AI-powered legal advice should be good news for workers. Instead, it is proving to be a tragedy of the commons. For workers with genuine grievances, the surge in demand means longer waits for justice. For employers, it means bigger legal bills to respond to claims, both well-founded or fantastical. In the age of AI, a system intended to provide access to justice suffers from, if anything, too much access."

▲

theptip 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I found this article quite myopic.

This is not a “tragedy of the commons”, it’s just a deficit of state capacity.

The state needs to use AI to make bureaucracy instantaneous. That’s the only option, unless you ban AI for this kind of thing (not gonna happen).

▲

eddythompson80 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> it’s just a deficit of state capacity.

That’s what a “tragedy of the commons” is though. The degradation of a shared resource (state capacity) by people acting in their own best interest.

The state using AI “to make bureaucracy instantaneous” is a tragedy of the commons. The experience is degraded because before you trusted your grievance will be heard, but now you might get auto rejected by an AI. It’s pretty much the definition of the phrase.

▲

zdragnar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

State capacity is a common good though, and AI makes abusing it much easier.

	▲	breezybottom 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's excludable, so I don't think it can be considered a common good.

▲

Gander5739 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So how do you propose to deal with the inevitable errors using AI would cause?

	▲	JauntyHatAngle an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You cant fool me. It's AI all the way down.