|
|
|
|
|
|
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF
1120 days ago
|
|
|
Not just the developer, but anyone who posted any sort of text in the training data. I assume that includes a pretty wide majority of English speakers. That makes the likelihood of actual agreement with the oath for all “participants” in the AI training low, to say the least. That point about swearing an oath is a good one. It’s a reasonable position (assuming it’s the court’s position) that an AI (assuming this is an “AI”) being asked to provide testimony or a legal argument is doing so on behalf of all who trained it. Why would “my” training argue in “your” case? What if one doesn’t agree with the oath? |
|
|