top | item 47204774 (no title) rahkiin | 1 day ago The 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. discuss order hn newest retsibsi|1 day 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.
retsibsi|1 day 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.
retsibsi|1 day ago
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.