161–170 of 505 posts
IME companies hire an ethics team to say they have an ethics team. The ethics team has no sway, no influence, and will never be able to move the business. They will try, and they will make reasonable recommendations, but the company will say, "that costs money..." and not take them.
IME companies hire an ethics team to say they have an ethics team. The ethics team has no sway, no influence, and will never be able to move the business. They will try, and they will make reasonable recommendations, but the company will say, "that costs money..." and not take them.
If you ever feel like your job is useless, remember that raytheon has an ethics team.
I'm having a hard time deciding what part of this is the most ridiculous. Contenders include:
- A political Science major lecturing on ethics.
- Meta and ethics in the same paragraph.
- A company who's CEO has credibly threatened (publicly) the livlihoods of hundreds of millions of people globally so much as paying lip service to ethics as a concept.
- Any news outlet feigning credulity hard enough to deadpan reporting on any of this.
Is it possible to roll one's eyes hard enough to injure oneself?
IME companies hire an ethics team to say they have an ethics team. The ethics team has no sway, no influence, and will never be able to move the business. They will try, and they will make reasonable recommendations, but the company will say, "that costs money..." and not take them.
> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” - Upton Sinclair
Think I first saw that on a usenet post, as true now as then and just as true as it was in the 1930's when he wrote it (in at least that form).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI was probably able to at least pretend that her role mattered... until they let their AI autonomously hack a rival company, then used the incident to score marketing points. I'm not surprised she left.
[flagged]
IME companies hire an ethics team to say they have an ethics team. The ethics team has no sway, no influence, and will never be able to move the business. They will try, and they will make reasonable recommendations, but the company will say, "that costs money..." and not take them.
If you ever feel like your job is useless, remember that raytheon has an ethics team.
The article has no detail that might serve to explain her reasoning for leaving, but does note that she left after the HuggingFace hacking incident. The implication could be that model alignment is not being taken seriously, sure. But it could just as likely be that there was collusion between HuggingFace and OpenAI and that the incident was orchestrated as a publicity stunt. I want to clarify that I am not doubting…
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.
Whats the definition of EAOS though who's ethics? Greek-Roman, Western, Islamic, Buddhist, Hinduism, Human rights (western values)..
There is a presumption here that there aren’t ethical “rules” shared by all of these systems to create a baseline that is generally shared across humanity.