Comment by hoistbypetard
10 hours ago
As an english speaker (not a lawyer) I'd have read the "and" in "applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols" to mean that all three were required.
Why do you read that to mean just one is required?
The first comma is ambiguous when reading it very precisely without prejudice.
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.
(I'm not a lawyer, but) I don't see the ambiguity. It's a normal grammatical sentence if parsed this way:
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.
This is the correct reading.