3 ms·

Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing fee

Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing feet and inches may be for some users I don’t think it will have the same effect as the AI praising Hitler.

skissane 3y ago
> Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Under Australian discrimination law, "national origin" means your country of birth, or the country of birth of your ancestors. [0] The Australian definition is (at least in part) derived from English discrimination law, as decided by the House of Lords in a 1972 case. [1] I believe the usual definition in international law is the same. "National origin" is related to "nationality/citizenship", but unlike the latter it is fixed at the time of birth – subsequent acts of naturalisation, renunciation or deprivation by change one's nationality, but they cannot change one's national origin. I can't find a precise legal definition of the term under US law, but some US legal definitions appear largely identical to the Australian/English definition, see e.g. how District of Columbia law defines the term [2] > Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing feet and inches may be for some users I don’t think it will have the same effect as the AI praising Hitler. Well, as I said, OpenAI didn't just train ChatGPT to refuse to praise Hitler, they also went to a lot of effort to tune it to avoid subtle bias against certain identifiable groups. What I'm talking about isn't the same as the former but is clearly related to the latter [0] Macabenta v Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1643; 90 FCR 202 https://jade.io/article/116118 https://jade.io/article/116118 [1] Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6b4 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6... [2] https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/OHR%20Enforcement%20Guidance%20FINAL%20-%2018-02%20-National%20Origin%20and%20Race.pdf https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publicat...
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Wikipedia links a pretty handy DOJ pamphlet here: https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+origin&pg=PA1#v=snippet&q=national%20origin&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+or... > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin. "Term of art for race or ethnicity" may be a crude gloss on that but I don't think it's really inaccurate. The closest thing in this brochure to what you're talking about is that in certain cases people have a right to an interpreter but I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" or use "football" to mean gridiron football.
  - skissane 3y ago
    Well, that US definition is actually broader than the Australian/English one. Notice it says: > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country... The parts I've italicised are exactly the definition of "national origin" discrimination in Australian and English law. From what you are quoting, the US definition includes the Australian/English one, but also goes beyond it. > I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" Courts don't just decide whether something is or isn't discrimination–they decide whether it is illegal discrimination. Not everything that meets the bare legal definition of "discrimination" (on some prohibited ground) is illegal – something may meet that definition, but nonetheless still be legal, because it is justifiable, or the harm it causes is insufficiently serious, or it is permitted or required by some other law. I doubt any Court would uphold a discrimination case based solely on English spelling differences – but that's not because spelling is per se outside the definitional scope of "national origin discrimination" – obviously it is an aspect of the "culture, or language" part of the definition you cited. Rather, I expect they'd rule that even though it is discrimination, it is legally permissible discrimination, either justifiable by the unreasonable expense of doing otherwise, and/or because the modicum of harm caused by it is too trivial to merit intervention by the legal system. But what counts as illegal discrimination is not really relevant here, because OpenAI has spent a lot of resources on trying to remove certain subtle biases in their AI models, which arguably goes well beyond what they are legally required to do. I'm criticising OpenAI's decisions, but I'm not claiming they ought to be prosecuted or sued over them. I'm simply citing legal definitions as informative as to what words mean, even in a context which goes beyond the strictly legal.

skissane 3y ago

> Maybe it’s different in international law but in US law “national origin” is just a term of art for race or ethnicity. Under Australian discrimination law, "national origin" means your country of birth, or the country of birth of your ancestors. [0] The Australian definition is (at least in part) derived from English discrimination law, as decided by the House of Lords in a 1972 case. [1] I believe the usual definition in international law is the same. "National origin" is related to "nationality/citizenship", but unlike the latter it is fixed at the time of birth – subsequent acts of naturalisation, renunciation or deprivation by change one's nationality, but they cannot change one's national origin. I can't find a precise legal definition of the term under US law, but some US legal definitions appear largely identical to the Australian/English definition, see e.g. how District of Columbia law defines the term [2] > Anyway, no matter how annoying seeing feet and inches may be for some users I don’t think it will have the same effect as the AI praising Hitler. Well, as I said, OpenAI didn't just train ChatGPT to refuse to praise Hitler, they also went to a lot of effort to tune it to avoid subtle bias against certain identifiable groups. What I'm talking about isn't the same as the former but is clearly related to the latter [0] Macabenta v Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1643; 90 FCR 202 https://jade.io/article/116118 https://jade.io/article/116118 [1] Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6b4 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c960d03e7f57ecd6... [2] https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publication/attachments/OHR%20Enforcement%20Guidance%20FINAL%20-%2018-02%20-National%20Origin%20and%20Race.pdf https://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/publicat...

emodendroket 3y ago
Wikipedia links a pretty handy DOJ pamphlet here: https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+origin&pg=PA1#v=snippet&q=national%20origin&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=21bNNU3bcugC&q=national+or... > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin. "Term of art for race or ethnicity" may be a crude gloss on that but I don't think it's really inaccurate. The closest thing in this brochure to what you're talking about is that in certain cases people have a right to an interpreter but I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" or use "football" to mean gridiron football.
- skissane 3y ago
  Well, that US definition is actually broader than the Australian/English one. Notice it says: > Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture, or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country... The parts I've italicised are exactly the definition of "national origin" discrimination in Australian and English law. From what you are quoting, the US definition includes the Australian/English one, but also goes beyond it. > I find it highly unlikely that any court is going to find it discriminatory if you spell it "color" instead of "colour" Courts don't just decide whether something is or isn't discrimination–they decide whether it is illegal discrimination. Not everything that meets the bare legal definition of "discrimination" (on some prohibited ground) is illegal – something may meet that definition, but nonetheless still be legal, because it is justifiable, or the harm it causes is insufficiently serious, or it is permitted or required by some other law. I doubt any Court would uphold a discrimination case based solely on English spelling differences – but that's not because spelling is per se outside the definitional scope of "national origin discrimination" – obviously it is an aspect of the "culture, or language" part of the definition you cited. Rather, I expect they'd rule that even though it is discrimination, it is legally permissible discrimination, either justifiable by the unreasonable expense of doing otherwise, and/or because the modicum of harm caused by it is too trivial to merit intervention by the legal system. But what counts as illegal discrimination is not really relevant here, because OpenAI has spent a lot of resources on trying to remove certain subtle biases in their AI models, which arguably goes well beyond what they are legally required to do. I'm criticising OpenAI's decisions, but I'm not claiming they ought to be prosecuted or sued over them. I'm simply citing legal definitions as informative as to what words mean, even in a context which goes beyond the strictly legal.