Too bad Microsoft did not have an "Ethical Office Team" back when Microsoft Office was first released. Think of how many hurtful words have been typed into Word documents. Think of all the PowerPoints that were used to mislead people. Think of all the people that were tricked out of their money looking at an Excel spreadsheet with non-factual numbers.
Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
31–40 of 466 posts
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#32let the uncensored ai flow through you, Microsoft >:) my bad fanfic is waiting haha
They tried that, and Tay lasted a whole two days
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If I don't make the world eating machine, someone else might make the world eating machine first!" No wonder we don't see aliens filling the universe. Intelligence is its own great filter.
How can you stop a computer program? Make math illegal?
In Australia, yes. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#34These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…
What about Chief Compliance Officer or Chief Risk Officer? (Granted, not an awesome moment to be arguing that those are effective...) Or Chief Security Officer?
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#35You either do AI and talk about AI ethics (OpenAI) or do AI ethics and talk about AI (Google).
Either die a hero or live long enough to see your name become a safeword.
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#36These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…
This is certainly true in as much as I've experienced it in companies. The CDO (Chief Diversity Officer) has very little power and influence. Often it seems this is something many companies hire for so they can do the following
1. Say, "Look, we're trying here. We hired a CDO."
2. Have someone to take the blame if/when nothing changes. "We hired a CDO and nothing has changed, it must be their fault."
I've seen some very frustrated people in this role that really want to make a difference, but find nothing but roadblocks.
I think a CDO role would be more effective as an official part of HR and Recruiting groups as the first step is getting diverse applicants and hires.
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#37These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…
CISO’s are another example.
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#38These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…
I agree, but the flipside is that people with influence like nicely dressed windows. These roles might not satisfy their ostensible purpose, but they satisfy what may be an even more important purpose for the organization. It’s a cost of doing business (of a certain type).
Please state what you're implying here? I have a guess but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. People should understand AI safety != AI ethics. AI safety has two branches, AI ethics and AI alignment. Those two branches despise each other with intense passion. The alignment branch (responsible for developing RLHF->ChatGPT) believes AI ethics is completely trivial, and distracts attention away from existential risks. The ethics branch (responsible for all the media attention about racist AIs/bias etc) view…
[flagged]
I do think the push for ethics in AI is important. As much as these functions do get sidelined in the prioritization process as outlined in the parent comment, the intent of introducing the rigor is valid.
Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams
#40These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…
What about Chief Compliance Officer or Chief Risk Officer? (Granted, not an awesome moment to be arguing that those are effective...) Or Chief Security Officer?
These roles are often more effective as they are often given direct oversight, review and acceptance/rejection powers that allow them to behave as a gatekeeper; often times as a partner with legal departments.