Hacker News Reader

Comment by tantalor | Hacker News Reader

> regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems

Seems trivial to work around since there is no legal definition of AI.

Instead of making your law specific to AI system, you can simply make it slightly broader in scope so it includes AI systems in practice.

For example, prohibition on AI facial recognition in public spaces -> prohibition on any computerized facial recognition

View on HN

“Automated decision systems” seems pretty broad to me. It would potentially also include a lot of non-AI systems. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_decision-making.

The court system is responsible for interpreting law so playing semantic games doesn't work very well unless you have a corrupt judge who sides with you and is willing to interpret it in this way

I don't think it'd be difficult to blur the lines in terms of implementation details in order to "AI launder" desired functionality in such a manner where the "AI" distinction becomes a philosophical debate between SMEs.

I think you can blur the lines to an extent and if the judge isn't very capable, pull one over on them, but to say an LLM or ML model is not artificial intelligence to a capable judge with a prosecution who points out there is an LLM, it would be hard to get around imo

"playing semantic games" is a euphemism for the entire practice of law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com