> Da: nexa <nexa-boun...@server-nexa.polito.it> per conto di Guido Vetere > <vetere.gu...@gmail.com> >Inviato: sabato 11 maggio 2024 12:02 > >non mi è chiaro il motivo per cui un disclaimer appropriato non offrirebbe >garanzie sufficienti (se questo è il punto)
La Federal Trade Commission statunitense ha spiegato pubblicamente il motivo per cui un disclaimer può non offrire garanzie sufficienti: There’s a back-and-forth that’s playing out in the popular press. There will be a wave of breathless coverage – and then there will be a very dry response from technical experts, stressing that no, these machines are not sentient, they’re just mimicking stories and patterns they’ve been trained on. No, they are not emoting, they are just echoing the vast quantities of human speech that they have analyzed. I worry that this debate may obscure the point. Because the law doesn’t turn on how a trained expert reacts to a technology – it turns on how regular people understand it. At the FTC, for example, when we evaluate whether a statement is deceptive, we ask what a reasonable person would think of it. When analyzing unfairness, we ask whether a reasonable person could avoid the harms in question. In tort law, we have the “eggshell” plaintiff doctrine: If your victim is particularly susceptible to an injury you caused, that is on you. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/prepared-remarks-commissioner-alvaro-m-bedoya-international-association-privacy-professionals
