
Letters are welcome via email to letters@economist.com Find out more about how we process your letter
欢迎通过电子邮件将来信发送至 letters@economist.com。了解更多关于我们如何处理您的来信的信息。
The new LevAIthan
新“利维AI坦”
The record backlog(积压的工作) of 64,000 claims against employers in Britain is troubling (“A tragedy of the commons”, August 8th). But it is misguided to blame the backlog on a system that enables “too much access” because there are no fees on bringing a case to an employment tribunal and there are no punitive costs to make people think hard about making a claim.(但将积压归咎于允许“过度准入”的制度是错误的,因为提起诉讼不收费,也没有惩罚性费用。) What is extraordinary(非凡的,令人惊奇的) is not the volume of new claims, but the historically low rate of resolved cases.
英国积压的针对雇主的索赔案件创下6.4万件的纪录,令人担忧(8月8日文章《公地悲剧》)。但将积压归咎于一个允许“过度准入”的制度是错误的,因为向就业法庭提起诉讼不收费,也没有惩罚性费用来促使人们慎重考虑是否索赔。令人惊讶的不是新索赔的数量,而是案件解决率处于历史低位。
Several changes could expedite(加快,加速) resolutions. Simple tweak(微调,小调整)s to the forms used to submit and respond to claims could limit the word-soup(文字汤,混乱的文字) generated by AI and help overstretched(超负荷的,不堪重负的) tribunals process them. Changes to case management, notoriously permissive in tribunals, would also make a world of difference(产生巨大影响). Imposing deposit order(保证金令)s on claims with low prospects of success would dissuade unmeritorious(无价值的,无根据的) cases without slapping all workers with fees.
几项改革可以加快案件解决。对提交和回应索赔的表格进行简单调整,可以限制AI生成的“文字汤”,并帮助不堪重负的法庭处理这些案件。对案件管理的改革——法庭在这方面出了名的宽松——也会产生巨大影响。对胜诉可能性低的索赔施加保证金令,可以劝阻无价值的案件,而不必向所有工人收取费用。
Rebutting a rebuttal
反驳反驳
Lights, camera, algorithm!
灯光,摄影机,算法!
Pipe dreams
管道梦想

Fine dining
精致餐饮
The stamp of approval
认可的标志
Opera critic
歌剧评论