5 ms·
As an english speaker (not a lawyer) I'd have read the "and" in "applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols"
by hoistbypetard 7mo ago
As an english speaker (not a lawyer) I'd have read the "and" in "applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols" to mean that all three were required.
Why do you read that to mean just one is required?
- piker 7mo agoThis is the correct reading.
- rahkiin 7mo agoThe first comma is ambiguous when reading it very precisely without prejudice. It is a list of 4 items. This should not have been written like this to stand up nicely in courts and gives way to interpretation now.
- retsibsi 7mo ago(I'm not a lawyer, but) I don't see the ambiguity. It's a normal grammatical sentence if parsed this way: The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with - applicable law - operational requirements - and well established safety and oversight protocols. Whereas if I try to parse it as a list of 4 items, it's not grammatical: The Department of War may use the AI System - for all lawful purposes - consistent with applicable law - operational requirements - and well-established safety and oversight protocols.