Frontier AI agents violate ethical constraints 30–50% of time, pressured by KPIs

> "Self-interest is the main motivation of human beings in their transactions" [...] The economic man solution is considered to be inadequate and flawed.[17]

An important distinction is that a human can *not* make pure rational decisions, or use complex deductions to make decisions on, such as "if I do X I will go to jail".

My point being: if AI were to risk jail time, it would still act different from humans, because (the current common LLMs) can make such deductions and rational decisions.

Humans will always add much broader contexts - from upbringing, via culture/religion, their current situation, to past experiences, or peer-consulting. In other words: a human may make an "(un)ethical" decision based on their social background, religion, a chat with a pal over a beer about the conundrum, their ability to find a new job, financial situation etc.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus

People will always find other goalposts to move. The trick is making sure the KPIs you set define the goalposts you care about staying in place.

Side note: Jordan Peterson is pretty much an example of inventing goalposts to move. Everything he argues about is about setting a goalpost, and then inventing others to move around to avoid being pinned down. Motte-and-bailey fallacy happens with KPIs as much as it does with debates.

Your question is an important one, but also one that has been extensively researched, documented and improved upon. Whole fields of science, like "Metaethics" deal with answering your question. Other fields of science with defining "normative ethics" aka ethics that "everyone agrees upon" and so on.

I may have misread your question as a somewhat dismissive sarcastic take or as a "Ethics are nonsense, because of who defines them". So I tried to answer it as an honest question. ;)

BOTH are now considered bad science. BOTH are now used as examples of "how not to do the science".

> The idea that corporate employees are fundamentally "not average" and therefore more prone to unethical behaviour than the general population relies on a dispositional explanation (it's about the person's character).

I did not said nor implied that. Corporate employees in general and Forbes 500 are not the same thing. Corporate employees as in cooks, cleaners, bureaucracy, testers and whoever are general population.

Whether company ends in Forbes 500 or not is not influenced by general corporate employees. It is influenced by higher management - separated social class. It is very much selected who gets in.

And second, companies compete against each other. A company run by ethical management is less likely to reach Forbes 500. Not doing unethical things is disadvantage in current business. It could have been different if there was law enforcement for rich people and companies and if there was political willingness to regulate the companies. None of that exists.

Third, look at issues around Epstein. It is not that everyone was cool with his misogyny, sexism and abuse. The people who were not cool with that seen red flags long before underage kids entered the room. These people did not associated with Epstein. People who associated with him were rewarded by additional money and success - but they also were much more unethical then a guy who said "this feels bad" and walked away.