The citizens ask LLMs (or more advanced future AIs) to identify if government finances are being used efficiently, and if there is evidence of corruption.
The corrupt government officers then start using the AIs to try to cover up the evidence of their crimes in the financial statements. The AI possibly putting the skills of high-end and expensive human accountants (or better) into the hands of local governments.
Corrupt government officers are one thing. But there is a ton of completely well-meaning bureaucracy in the U.S. (and everywhere!) that could benefit from a huge, huge step change in "ability to comprehend".
Bad actors will always exist but I think there's a LOT of genuine good to be done here!
If we put the right checks and balances (powered by AI) in place now, we can front run the criminals, both the obvious and non-obvious crimes. We can shine light in more places and push the corruption further out of the system.
> The corrupt government officers then start using the AIs
You're making it way too complicated. The government will simply make AI illegal and claim it's for safety or something. The'll then use a bunch of scary words to demonize it, and their pals in the mainstream media will push it on low-information voters. California already has a bill in the works to do exactly this.
> The corrupt government officers then start using the AIs to try to cover up the evidence of their crimes in the financial statements.
There's a difference between an AI being able to answer questions and it helping cover up evidence, unless you mean "using the AIs for advice on how to cover up evidence"
The corrupt government officers then start using the AIs to try to cover up the evidence of their crimes in the financial statements. The AI possibly putting the skills of high-end and expensive human accountants (or better) into the hands of local governments.
Who wins this attrition war?