A human could equally make these same mistakes, and an LLM looks at the world differently to most humans so it could add aspects we wouldn't normally think about.
But these issues is why legislation goes through scruinity, committee and reviews before being passed to iron out these issues. I feel using LLM for a first draft is entirely reasonable.
"reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that post. I haven't examined the input/outputs -- just calling it out as an inherently subjective thing that warrants some further definition.
TLDR: ChatGPT was useful in summarizing arguments that have been repeated ad nauseam on the internet, but not useful in generating an enforceable ordinance. OTOH, it did do an okay job generating a grade-school (meaning, 3rd or 4th grade equivalent) overview of what existing leaf blower ordinances roughly look like when viewed through the eyes of a child.
Correct. The problem isn't leaf blowers, it is equipment that produces unreasonable levels of noise. Leaf blowers are a good example of it, but the law should directly address the noise, not the function. Something like: no power equipment that exceeds 65dB measured from 1' may be operated in the city.
Of course many municipalities already have noise ordinances, the trick is enforcement.
