zlacker

OpenAI is not the government. Yet.

>>antifr+(OP)
What do I do with this information?

>>a_wild+j
Your original comment uses the term "free speech," which in the context of the discussion of the legality of contract in the US, brings to mind the first amendment.

But first amendment basically only restricts the government's ability to suppress speech, not the ability of other parties (like OpenAI).

This restriction may be illegal, but not on first amendment ("free speech") grounds.

>>a_wild+j
Anti frame is saying that free speech guarantee in Constitution only applies to the relationship between the government and the citizens, not between private entities.

>>a_wild+j
In the US, the Constitution prevents the government from regulating your speech.

It does not prevent you from entering into contracts with other private entities, like your company, about what THEY allow you to say or not. In this case there might be other laws about whether a company can unilaterally force that on you after the fact, but that's not a free speech consideration, just a contract dispute.

See https://www.themuse.com/advice/non-disparagement-clause-agre...

>>antifr+(OP)
Free speech is a much more general notion than anything having to do with governments.

The first amendment is a US free speech protection, but it's not prototypical.

You can also find this in some other free speech protections, for example that in the UDHR

>Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

doesn't refer to states at all.

>>a_wild+j
I think we need to face the fact that these companies aren’t trustworthy in upholding their own stated morals. We need to consider whether streaming video from our phone to a complex AI system that can interpret everything it sees might have longer term privacy implications. When you think about it, a cloud AI system is an incredible surveillance machine. You want to talk to it about important questions in your life, and it would also be capable of dragnet surveillance based on complex concepts like “show me all the people organizing protests” etc.

Consider for example that when Amazon bought the Ring security camera system, it had a “god mode” that allowed executives and a team in Ukraine unlimited access to all camera data. It wasn’t just a consumer product for home users, it was a mass surveillance product for the business owners:

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/10/amazon-ring-security-cam...

The EFF has more information on other privacy issues with that system:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-s...

These big companies and their executives want power. Withholding huge financial gain from ex employees to maintain their silence is one way of retaining that power.

>>imposs+r2
UDHR is not law so it's irrelevant to a question of law.

>>imposs+r2
Free speech is a God-given right. It is innate and given to you and everyone at birth, after which it can only be suppressed but never revoked.

>>antifr+(OP)
A lot of people forget that although 1A means the government can’t put you in prison for things, there are a lot of pretty unpleasant consequences from private entities. As far as I know, it wouldn’t be illegal for a dentist to deny care to someone who criticized them, for example.

>>kfrzco+y3
Good luck serving God with a subpoena when you have to defend yourself in court. He's really good at dodging process servers.

>>kfrzco+y3
I know it is popular, but I distrust "natural rights" rhetoric like this.

>>kfrzco+y3
Did God tell you this? People who talk about innate rights are just making things up

>>janals+I3
Right, and that's why larger companies need regulation around those consequences. If a dentist doesn't want to treat you because you criticized them, that's fine, but if State Farm doesn't want to insure your dentistry because you criticized them, regulators shouldn't allow that.

>>antifr+(OP)
If the courts enforce the agreement then that is state action.

So I think an argument can be made that NDAs and similar agreements should not be enforceable by courts.

See Shelley v. Kraemer

>>lupire+03
Originally the comment to which that comment responded said something about free speech rather than anything about legality, and it was in that context which I responded, so the comment to which I responded must have also been written in that context.

>>holler+p7
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I mean to say there are certain rights we all have, simply for existing as humans. The right to breathe is a good example. No human, state, or otherwise has the moral high-ground to take these rights from us. They are not granted, or given, they are absolute and unequivocal.

It's not rhetoric, it's basic John Locke. Also your trust is an internal locus, and doesn't change the facts.

>>Camper+m7
The inalienable rights of mankind are not given to us or validated in a court of man's law. This is not new philosophy and comes from at least as far back as the Greeks.

Your quips will serve you well, I'm sure, in whatever microcosm you populate.

>>smabie+B7
You do not seem to be embracing an open-minded discussion about the philosophy. Why beg the question? Are you admitting the State is the authority under which you are granted all privilege to live, love, and work? Who is to stop someone if you are being attacked, and your children are at risk? Do you wish you had a permit to allow you to breath?

"self-evident," means it requires no formal proof, as it is obvious to all with common sense and reason.

>>kfrzco+AWb
(Shrug) The Greeks are dead, and so is anyone who tries to argue philosophy with someone holding a gun.

>>Camper+uog
Self-defense is one of these God-given rights so I miss your point