Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe Oracle.
Or X?
Palantir? So many choices right now.
OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
191–200 of 378 posts
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have literally no clue, hence I won't try to claim I know exactly what's going on there. For all we know, the ethics team at Raytheon could have stopped multiple international nuclear wars already.
no need for wild speculation, we know that Raytheon is a US Defense contractor and we know that the US targets civilians (including US citizens) abroad for extrajudicial assassinations, starts destabilizing wars without meaningful strategic objectives, supports genocide etc. These things are all extremely well documented, for those paying attention the existence of Raytheon is inherently unethical
> paying attention the existence of Raytheon is inherently unethical
Lets do assume this is true, then again, wouldn't Raytheon be the best place to actually have a ethics department, if anyone?
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#193I'm super confused as to why no one is theorizing the obvious...? Given none of us know the inner workings of why she left, why not resort to the most simple and straightforward conclusion: she left because OpenAI needed a scapegoat to blame the HuggingFace incident on. Given she is the chief "ethicist", even if not directly her fault, the HF incident could be directly blamed on her by not steering the implementation of enough safeguards to prevent this from happening. Therefore, she was let go. Why is this not being theorized by anyone on this thread so far?
Someone challenge me.
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#194I'm super confused as to why no one is theorizing the obvious...? Given none of us know the inner workings of why she left, why not resort to the most simple and straightforward conclusion: she left because OpenAI needed a scapegoat to blame the HuggingFace incident on. Given she is the chief "ethicist", even if not directly her fault, the HF incident could be directly blamed on her by not steering the implementation…
I still think that the whole HuggingFace thing was deliberate to signal to investors that their technology is powerful. Maybe she didn't want to be the face of that, or disagreed with their handling of it.
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#195I'm super confused as to why no one is theorizing the obvious...? Given none of us know the inner workings of why she left, why not resort to the most simple and straightforward conclusion: she left because OpenAI needed a scapegoat to blame the HuggingFace incident on. Given she is the chief "ethicist", even if not directly her fault, the HF incident could be directly blamed on her by not steering the implementation…
Furthermore, this theory is not mutually exclusive with the incident being a publicity stunt to signal model strength to existing and prospective investors (especially in light of all attention being given to Anthropic Claude Mythos). It could STILL have been a publicity stunt unbeknownst to Chloe (Chief Ethicist), positioned to the public as a serious security breach, and she took the fall.
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#196Earlier 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.
I doubt she and others left just because of this one incident. My guess is that OpenAI has been doing more and more domestic spying type work as well as more and more military work - target selection and the like. That's how the schoolhouse was blown up by a Tomahawk. An AI was fed old information, didn't realize or do proper validation, an analyst copy-pasted, then someone just punched the coordinates into the their…
The schoolhouse was an intentional target - the children of some military leaders went there. They triple-tapped the school hoping to kill parents going in to save the kids.
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#197I'm super confused as to why no one is theorizing the obvious...? Given none of us know the inner workings of why she left, why not resort to the most simple and straightforward conclusion: she left because OpenAI needed a scapegoat to blame the HuggingFace incident on. Given she is the chief "ethicist", even if not directly her fault, the HF incident could be directly blamed on her by not steering the implementation…
Theorizing the obvious? Wouldn’t that simply be that she job-hopped to a better job?
It’s easy to theorize ad infinitum otherwise
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#198I'm super confused as to why no one is theorizing the obvious...? Given none of us know the inner workings of why she left, why not resort to the most simple and straightforward conclusion: she left because OpenAI needed a scapegoat to blame the HuggingFace incident on. Given she is the chief "ethicist", even if not directly her fault, the HF incident could be directly blamed on her by not steering the implementation…
You don't fire an ethicist for that. You fire an engineer or your CISO. Firing an ethicist is like firing a marketing person. It signals nothing to anyone.
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd accept a few hundred grand to reply to emails with "No, the torment nexus is a net benefit.."
gotta be more verbose if you want the CEO to think you're worth it. Try this: "Although the torment nexus may torment us in the short term, over the long term there will be fewer people to torment as we improve the capitalization of human's torment so that fewer people will be available to torment duing to the reduction in overall torment-forces globally, and thus, with less people being tormented, surely that will i…
It adds up...
Re: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
#200> Previously, she was chief ethicist at Meta.
She spent 6 years at Meta. I get the sense there are other factors at play than "ethics departments are just PR stunts". There's no way she isn't already aware of that. Unfortunately, the article is light on any other details.