71–80 of 302 posts
> Before working at OpenAI, she was Meta’s chief ethicist
So more of an ethicist-for-pay than for the challenge of it.
ie: blaming her for anything instead of the decision makers is... really weird?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So more of an ethicist-for-pay than for the challenge of it.
Just because the ethicist says something is a bad idea, doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to make a change. ie: blaming her for anything instead of the decision makers is... really weird?
Yesterday I came up with an idea that I sent to some researchers at the different AI labs via email: Rather than train the model on one score, track two scores. The first score is the Short-term-objective-score (STOS) and the other, more important one, is the EAOS Ethically-aligned-outcome-score. Every trajectory can be evaluated on whether or not it has a high enough EAOS to be considered acceptable. If the model do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people have strong morals, and might resist profit-maximising behaviours, but they will be outcompeted and replaced by less scrupulous people. There is actually no sharp difference between a person and a one-person-company, but: to the degree a company is really a company and not just a person, it is amoral. If you disagree, please point to a moral backstop that would prevent any company from taking immoral acts…
The people and procedures inside are the backstop.
By contrast, how many conversations have you personally had with people working at a company believing a profitable action was firmly unethical, but felt forced to behave that way due to "business realities" or some other whitewashing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said "there are homeless people everywhere", which is technically true but omits quantity, and especially quantity compared to wealth. I'm not as positive as you are about what makes California (and Seattle) create/attract so many, but it's definitely an outlier compared to "everywhere".
Yes, if you didn't understand my point: there are homeless people in every society, but most do not have as many as silicon valley because they pressure them into accepting the help necessary to restore their ability to make rational decisions. Rational people do not choose to live outside on the sidewalk like rats, people who are drug addicted and who have untreated mental illness do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works at all. You can't pressure people into becoming a productive member of society. What you can do when it already happened is kill them or make them die in some ways, jail them or try to support and/or treat them. I hope it goes without saying that letting them just die or killing or jailing them is not an option in a western society. Prevention is much more favorable of course. For example, don…
Until you accept that they didn't 'easily become homeless' the problem will continue. They used drugs and spiraled, usually over the course of many months or years, forced all their friends to turn their backs on them, got kicked out of any living situations they had access to because of drug/alcohol use or theft to support the same and finally ended up on the street. On the street they have access to almost endless…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true that this is happening a lot. And I think this is one of the reasons why ethicists still want to get involved in these companies: it should be easier to make a company do the right thing from the inside, why else would they hire for these positions? They join with idealism and probably don't get very far in terms of real impact.
> They join with idealism and probably don't get very far in terms of real impact. I can't disagree with that, reminds me of the quote from the movie Rounders: If you've been at the table for 30 minutes and you don't know who the sucker is, you ARE the sucker.
100% of the time, ethics department attracts activists, which is 100% trouble for the company in the future.