Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My north star for the future of AI

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#21

Post by smcleod »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #18
threeseed wrote: post #16

I wonder if she realises that almost everyone in SV has gone to university and most have attended at least one or two ethics classes during that time. Because ultimately people will be driven by the same thing that drove previous generations: money, power, fame, success, ego etc. And no amount of university lectures with enlightened scientists and their superior values will change that.

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.

This is a really good point that isn't raised nearly enough.

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#22

Post by Terr_ »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #18
threeseed wrote: post #16

I wonder if she realises that almost everyone in SV has gone to university and most have attended at least one or two ethics classes during that time. Because ultimately people will be driven by the same thing that drove previous generations: money, power, fame, success, ego etc. And no amount of university lectures with enlightened scientists and their superior values will change that.

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.

> engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders.

Does the primary responsibility for that really fall on engineers in the first place?

It just feels a little victim blame-y to me. Shouldn't most of the culpability fall on those stakeholders who don't want to be convinced because it means lower feature-velocity or less investor-profit?

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#24

Post by threeseed »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #18
threeseed wrote: post #16

I wonder if she realises that almost everyone in SV has gone to university and most have attended at least one or two ethics classes during that time. Because ultimately people will be driven by the same thing that drove previous generations: money, power, fame, success, ego etc. And no amount of university lectures with enlightened scientists and their superior values will change that.

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.

a) I don't think CEOs of multi-billion companies care about the opinions of engineers in general let alone the morality of ethics versus revenue.

b) CEOs typically will do whatever it takes to maximise revenue, past the point of what is ethical/moral, up until they hit the limit of whether it's illegal.

And then most but not all will stop. I'm hopeful but doubtful that AI will be any different.

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#25

Post by Barrin92 »

Terr_ wrote: post #22
PradeetPatel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.

> engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Does the primary responsibility for that really fall on engineers in the first place? It just feels a little victim blame-y to me. Shouldn't most of the culpability fall on those stakeholders who don't want to be convinced because it means lower feature-velocity or less investor-profit?

Primary? Debatable. But you do have responsibility for what you build, who you build it for and what and who you enable with your expertise. And engineers do have plenty of that, so they have plenty of reponsibility too.

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#26

Post by fatherzine »

PradeetPatel wrote: post #18
threeseed wrote: post #16

I wonder if she realises that almost everyone in SV has gone to university and most have attended at least one or two ethics classes during that time. Because ultimately people will be driven by the same thing that drove previous generations: money, power, fame, success, ego etc. And no amount of university lectures with enlightened scientists and their superior values will change that.

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.

picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders. the metrics are misaligned. smart and wise people spent 2000 years seeking an workaround for this problem. there is none. there are only convoluted excuses.

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#27

Post by oska »

dang, I see you've changed the submission title back to the article title.

The thinking behind going with my submission title :

> Fei-Fei Li wants AI reimagined from the ground up as a human-centered practice

was that the article title was too vague. The 'North Star' she is referencing is explained in the last paragraph of the article, which is what I used to compose my submission title :

> This, collectively, is the next North Star: reimagining AI from the ground up as a human-centered practice. I don’t see it as a change in the journey’s direction so much as a broadening of its scope. AI must become as committed to humanity as it’s always been to science. It should remain collaborative and deferential in the best academic tradition, but unafraid to confront the real world. Starlight, after all, is manifold. Its white glow, once unraveled, reveals every color that can be seen.

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#29

Post by wavemode »

oska wrote: post #27

dang, I see you've changed the submission title back to the article title. The thinking behind going with my submission title : > Fei-Fei Li wants AI reimagined from the ground up as a human-centered practice was that the article title was too vague. The 'North Star' she is referencing is explained in the last paragraph of the article, which is what I used to compose my submission title : > This, collectively, is the…

Titles don't get changed from the original merely for being vague. They have to be actively misleading.

Re: My north star for the future of AI

#30

Post by justinclift »

fatherzine wrote: post #26
PradeetPatel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.

picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders. the metrics are misaligned. smart and wise people spent 2000 years seeking an workaround for this problem. there is none. there are only convoluted excuses.

> picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders

"The paperclip maximiser was great up until it turned the solar system into paperclips.

Thankfully, a few of us were aware of the risk and escaped to a nearby solar system. It's not as nice as the first one, but it'll do.

Now, who wants to buy some paperclips? :)"

Post reply on HN