{"id":173092,"date":"2026-04-16T14:42:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T20:42:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tecscience.tec.mx\/en\/?p=173092"},"modified":"2026-04-27T12:54:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T18:54:07","slug":"chatgpt-mexico-congress-ai-guidelines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tecscience.tec.mx\/en\/tech\/chatgpt-mexico-congress-ai-guidelines\/","title":{"rendered":"ChatGPT in Mexican Congress: Between Efficiency and a Lack of Guidelines"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The use of artificial intelligence<\/a> (AI) tools\u2014such as ChatGPT and Gemini\u2014is present in spaces that once seemed unlikely, such as the legislative processes of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. A recent investigation found that deputies and senators are increasingly using these technologies without clear regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The story began when Sergio B\u00e1rcena<\/a>, a research professor at the School of Humanities and Education<\/a> (EHE) of Tec de Monterrey and founder of Bur\u00f3 Parlamentario<\/a>, a civil organization that monitors and analyzes legislative work, collaborated with the team that will be in charge of drafting the Artificial Intelligence Law in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s where the key question<\/a> arose: are these systems already being used within Congress, and how often? To answer it, the first thing he and his team did was survey the advisors of the Mexico City Congress, who are responsible for a significant part of the technical work behind initiatives, positions, and speeches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following this, they discovered that its use was already common and growing rapidly, especially among younger advisors. They also identified that it was concentrated on specific tasks, such as summarizing texts and information. \u201cI haven\u2019t conducted these surveys at other congresses, but I suspect that usage is closely related to the capacity of the infrastructure,\u201d says B\u00e1rcena.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paradoxically, they discovered that the existence of AI hasn’t lightened their workload but rather increased it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Afterward, they provided general training to Congress, where they found they shared concerns, such as authorship and the handling of sensitive data. “We all know what the problems are [with AI], but we’re still willing to compromise in exchange for it making our lives a little easier,” the researcher explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How they Detected the Use of ChatGPT in Legislative Speeches<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This initial approach was limited by the fact that it depended on respondents accepting that they use these types of tools, so asking the legislators themselves didn’t sound like the best idea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cObviously they\u2019re not going to say yes, because if you\u2019ve seen it in the media, well, the legislator who uses ChatGPT gets lynched,\u201d says B\u00e1rcena.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faced with this difficulty, the team opted to look for evidence of AI in the parliamentary speeches themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To do this, they developed a methodology<\/a> to analyze speeches by members of parliament and senators to look for what they call “linguistic traces” of language models, that is, speech patterns typical of texts generated with these tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These footprints include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n