This is key because it's the textbook example of a war crime. It's also something that the current administration has bragged doing dozens of times.
More succinctly: who decides what is legal here? OpenAI, the Secretary of Defense, or a judge?
> More succinctly: who decides what is legal here?
| 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.
- legal
- operational requirements
- "well-established safety and oversight protocols"
> who decides what is [consistent with operational requirements] here?
There's also subtle language elsewhere. Notice the word "domestic" shows up between "mass" and "surveillance"? We already have another agency that's exploited that one...
Why do you read that to mean just one is required?
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.
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.
I can see the logic if we were talking about dumb weapons--the old debate about guns don't kill people, people kill people. Except now we are in fact talking about guns that kill people.
> More succinctly: who decides what is legal here? OpenAI, the Secretary of Defense, or a judge?
Yeah, there's a pretty strong case that anyone claiming to trust that the administration cares about operating in good faith with respect to the law is either delusional or lying.