2 ms·
There seems to be a lot of commenters on this post that have forgotten that the law and law adjacent matters are not intended to be parsed by computers with exa
by MadnessASAP 3y ago
There seems to be a lot of commenters on this post that have forgotten that the law and law adjacent matters are not intended to be parsed by computers with exacting pendantry.
Believe it or not but a judge, prosecutor, lawyer, or clerk, even one inexperienced can be relied on to tell the difference between an "if" statement, an algorithm, and a multi billion parameter opaque model.
The law is better when it is written without exhaustive all encompassing definitions because it allows those who interpret the law to apply discretion. Discretion is important because it allows for situations that were not forseen by the original authors. It allows someone to say "I don't care what you want to call it, this very clearly is/isn't AI. "
- cle 3y agoI'd imagine most folks are concerned with the other way that discretion cuts--it also allows tenuous interpretations that are not in the spirit of the law or are based on controversial interpretations, judicial activism, etc. As a lay person, I also object to unclear laws and processes because it's my repsonsibility to understand and follow them. How am I supposed to do that correctly if they're intentionally ambiguous?
- MadnessASAP 3y agoThe system isn't without flaws and unfortunately the American legal system is particularly rife with the. To stay on topic though, no 2 people will give you the same definition of "AI" and yet we're rapidly moving into the age of it. As such the only way to regulate around it is on a "we'll know it when we see it" basis. I know HN doesn't generally care for regulations on technology but the undeniable reality is that the online space has a dramatic effect on the real world and that AI can have a dramatic effect on the online space.