221–230 of 368 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theorizing the obvious? Wouldn’t that simply be that she job-hopped to a better job? It’s easy to theorize ad infinitum otherwise
What do you mean? She didn't job hop to a better job, that's the whole point. She very well could have gotten "let go".
I'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.
> 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.
It's possible she came to view her role at Meta as having enabled the company to continue its bad behaviour and decided against doing the same thing at OpenAI. Alternatively, things at OpenAI could be so bad that an ethicist who stuck with Meta for 6 years decided she couldn't stay any longer. Either way, from a PR perspective, this is spherically awful for OpenAI.
This comes at a time when there is huge pushback against all AI companies due to, in large part, ethical concerns. As with Flock, there is the threat that physical infrastructure, such as data-centres, could be attacked if nothing is done to win back public opinion. OpenAI would be wise to take Bakalar's departure seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe Oracle.
Or X?
I'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…
What's "obvious" is she was chief ethicist at the most unethical companies on the planet - it's like being a lawyer for the mafia - doesn't inspire longevity, either via scapegoating or preservation of one's own sanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rubber stamp for hire?
I'd accept a few hundred grand to reply to emails with "No, the torment nexus is a net benefit.."
Or are you telling us in the hope someone makes you such an offer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.