4 ms·

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

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.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I don't buy it as discriminatory to produce output that conforms to one standard or another. If we accept this then a Mexican restaurant is discriminatory for not serving Chinese food.
  - skissane 3y ago
    I don't think that analogy really works. We are talking about the behaviour of a de facto oligopolist, not restaurants of which there are thousands in any major metro area. In the long-term I think this is going to be far less of an issue. Who cares if a US-built AI has a (particular kind of) US bias if there are dozens of other AIs available, of similar capability, several of which come from different countries and so likely have a different country-bias instead. Also, OpenAI's marketing/PR – and even actual product behaviour – makes a big deal out of being "less biased", "ethical", "non-discriminatory" – so it makes sense to hold those claims up to critical scrutiny – relatively few restaurants make those kinds of things part of their branding.
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      I just don't see the claims as related. Even if a restaurant did make those claims I'd see that as a claim about how they treated their customers, not what kind of food they'd serve up.
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
>people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country // So, people from other countries have constitutional rights, and e.g. the same rights of entry to USA? I mean the USA Constitution seems like it give rights to people, and not just citizens, but... My point, I guess, is that it seems discrimination is baked in, so those absolutes are not as absolute as they appear.
- skissane 3y ago
  A lot of the discussion here is about statutory rights (under the Civil Rights Act), not constitutional rights. But, if we just talk about the latter: under US constitutional law, national origin is a "suspect class" which demands "strict scrutiny" under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (as developed by the Supreme Court's case law). The other "suspect classes" are race, religion and "alienage" (the state of being a non-US citizen). There are also two "quasi-suspect classes", discrimination on the grounds of which is subject to the weaker "intermediate scrutiny" – sex/gender (which possibly includes sexual orientation/gender identity) and legitimacy of birth. All other discriminatory grounds (age, disability, wealth, politics, criminal record, etc) are only subject to the weakest "rational basis review". But "strict scrutiny" is not an absolute bar on discrimination, it just means the government has the onus of convincing the Supreme Court that the discrimination is necessary to obtain a "compelling state interest". Even though US immigration law obviously discriminates against non-US people on the basis of national origin and "alienage", the US government has never had any trouble convincing the Supreme Court that immigration law serves a "compelling state interest". That's a point a lot of people don't get about discrimination law (whether statutory or constitutional) – discrimination per se is not illegal, even on protected grounds. Rather, discrimination is illegal when it lacks a sufficiently compelling justification, with the strength of justification required depending on how strongly protected those grounds are.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  Noncitizens do have constitutional rights, that much is clear. If they didn't the job of hardline anti-immigration politicians would be much easier.

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.

emodendroket 3y ago
I don't buy it as discriminatory to produce output that conforms to one standard or another. If we accept this then a Mexican restaurant is discriminatory for not serving Chinese food.
- skissane 3y ago
  I don't think that analogy really works. We are talking about the behaviour of a de facto oligopolist, not restaurants of which there are thousands in any major metro area. In the long-term I think this is going to be far less of an issue. Who cares if a US-built AI has a (particular kind of) US bias if there are dozens of other AIs available, of similar capability, several of which come from different countries and so likely have a different country-bias instead. Also, OpenAI's marketing/PR – and even actual product behaviour – makes a big deal out of being "less biased", "ethical", "non-discriminatory" – so it makes sense to hold those claims up to critical scrutiny – relatively few restaurants make those kinds of things part of their branding.
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    I just don't see the claims as related. Even if a restaurant did make those claims I'd see that as a claim about how they treated their customers, not what kind of food they'd serve up.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

>people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country // So, people from other countries have constitutional rights, and e.g. the same rights of entry to USA? I mean the USA Constitution seems like it give rights to people, and not just citizens, but... My point, I guess, is that it seems discrimination is baked in, so those absolutes are not as absolute as they appear.

skissane 3y ago
A lot of the discussion here is about statutory rights (under the Civil Rights Act), not constitutional rights. But, if we just talk about the latter: under US constitutional law, national origin is a "suspect class" which demands "strict scrutiny" under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (as developed by the Supreme Court's case law). The other "suspect classes" are race, religion and "alienage" (the state of being a non-US citizen). There are also two "quasi-suspect classes", discrimination on the grounds of which is subject to the weaker "intermediate scrutiny" – sex/gender (which possibly includes sexual orientation/gender identity) and legitimacy of birth. All other discriminatory grounds (age, disability, wealth, politics, criminal record, etc) are only subject to the weakest "rational basis review". But "strict scrutiny" is not an absolute bar on discrimination, it just means the government has the onus of convincing the Supreme Court that the discrimination is necessary to obtain a "compelling state interest". Even though US immigration law obviously discriminates against non-US people on the basis of national origin and "alienage", the US government has never had any trouble convincing the Supreme Court that immigration law serves a "compelling state interest". That's a point a lot of people don't get about discrimination law (whether statutory or constitutional) – discrimination per se is not illegal, even on protected grounds. Rather, discrimination is illegal when it lacks a sufficiently compelling justification, with the strength of justification required depending on how strongly protected those grounds are.
emodendroket 3y ago
Noncitizens do have constitutional rights, that much is clear. If they didn't the job of hardline anti-immigration politicians would be much easier.