4 ms·

This is why the law says : “in the opinion of the Secretary of State, consists of or includes computer code.” - I believe a prompt could theoretically be interp

by NeoTar 2y ago

This is why the law says : “in the opinion of the Secretary of State, consists of or includes computer code.” - I believe a prompt could theoretically be interpreted as code. Some (human) judgement is needed.

makapuf 2y ago
Hey, I could fall for this!
ethbr1 2y ago
Code is structured information, as is language. Ergo, the only acceptable company names going forward will be random noise.
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  > Ergo, the only acceptable company names going forward will be chosen by fair dice roll.
philipov 2y ago
Yes, the proper definition of "code" here is "something the author expects to be executed as instructions to a computer" - which inherently requires Theory of Mind to identify.
- tshaddox 2y ago
  Nah, you get around needing an explicit theory of mind with the fictive "reasonable person." Most systems of criminal law place a lot of importance on both mens rea and intent.
  - philipov 2y ago
    Mens Rea is exactly why you need Theory of Mind. One can't judge intent without it. The point is that some naive mechanistic definition like "Structured information" that another commenter suggested isn't going to fit the bill. It is the intent to have the message be maliciously executed that needs adjudication, and you need a human that can exercise theory of mind to be able to do that. One can't do it with a regex, for example. Especially in the coming era of natural language interfaces, the only difference between code and other language is how it is intended to be used.
    - tshaddox 2y ago
      You might have something like a theory of mind, but it would be a generalized theory of mind that provides you with conclusions like "a reasonable person would probably not perform SomeAction unless they intended SomeConsequence". You don't actually need a theory of mind for the specific accused person. They could be a p-zombie, and that won't change the legal process.
      - hnfong 2y ago
        The actual situation is much more nuanced (at least in English law). See for example https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-g-recklessness.php https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-g-recklessness.php
dylan604 2y ago
>Some (human) judgement is needed. which is clearly covered with "in the opinion of"

by NeoTar 2y ago

makapuf 2y ago

Hey, I could fall for this!

ethbr1 2y ago

Code is structured information, as is language. Ergo, the only acceptable company names going forward will be random noise.

formerly_proven 2y ago
> Ergo, the only acceptable company names going forward will be chosen by fair dice roll.

philipov 2y ago

Yes, the proper definition of "code" here is "something the author expects to be executed as instructions to a computer" - which inherently requires Theory of Mind to identify.

tshaddox 2y ago
Nah, you get around needing an explicit theory of mind with the fictive "reasonable person." Most systems of criminal law place a lot of importance on both mens rea and intent.
- philipov 2y ago
  Mens Rea is exactly why you need Theory of Mind. One can't judge intent without it. The point is that some naive mechanistic definition like "Structured information" that another commenter suggested isn't going to fit the bill. It is the intent to have the message be maliciously executed that needs adjudication, and you need a human that can exercise theory of mind to be able to do that. One can't do it with a regex, for example. Especially in the coming era of natural language interfaces, the only difference between code and other language is how it is intended to be used.
  - tshaddox 2y ago
    You might have something like a theory of mind, but it would be a generalized theory of mind that provides you with conclusions like "a reasonable person would probably not perform SomeAction unless they intended SomeConsequence". You don't actually need a theory of mind for the specific accused person. They could be a p-zombie, and that won't change the legal process.
    - hnfong 2y ago
      The actual situation is much more nuanced (at least in English law). See for example https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-g-recklessness.php https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-g-recklessness.php

dylan604 2y ago

>Some (human) judgement is needed. which is clearly covered with "in the opinion of"