For the Eagle County case, couldn't you deal with the oil well/refinery issue by arguing that that's an economic effect, not an environmental one, and therefore isn't required by NEPA? The oil wells will probably require their own NEPA report anyway. The petitioner's frustration is that they're being required to talk about second- and third- order effects and I don't see why the text really requires that.
AI would unquestionably be used f environmental impact reports were done by private businesses. But what incentive does government have to do this? One would think it might cause an uproar and they would shy away. For that matter, what are rules, regulations and norms for using AI in government legal work now? I would think we end up with a scenario in which government lawyers use AI because it’s easier but drag out the process in order to have to do less work and also preempt any suspicions that they outsourced the work to a computer. Are the reports done by outside consultants? In this case, there’s more hope AI would do it quickly but I’d still suspect they’d try to hide the fact that it is done by AI.
The EIS in this case states that the government was working with a third-party consultant, although a consultant might object too depending on how it is compensated.
I think there aren't any rules, regulations, or norms at the moment governing the use of AI. It won't be used unless agency leadership is committed to using it (or Congress requires its use).
For the Eagle County case, couldn't you deal with the oil well/refinery issue by arguing that that's an economic effect, not an environmental one, and therefore isn't required by NEPA? The oil wells will probably require their own NEPA report anyway. The petitioner's frustration is that they're being required to talk about second- and third- order effects and I don't see why the text really requires that.
AI would unquestionably be used f environmental impact reports were done by private businesses. But what incentive does government have to do this? One would think it might cause an uproar and they would shy away. For that matter, what are rules, regulations and norms for using AI in government legal work now? I would think we end up with a scenario in which government lawyers use AI because it’s easier but drag out the process in order to have to do less work and also preempt any suspicions that they outsourced the work to a computer. Are the reports done by outside consultants? In this case, there’s more hope AI would do it quickly but I’d still suspect they’d try to hide the fact that it is done by AI.
The EIS in this case states that the government was working with a third-party consultant, although a consultant might object too depending on how it is compensated.
I think there aren't any rules, regulations, or norms at the moment governing the use of AI. It won't be used unless agency leadership is committed to using it (or Congress requires its use).
This is an extremely lucid, useful post.
As a fan of ground dwelling birds, I appreciate the Sage Grouse AI art