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

Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 409 posts

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#301

Post by _heimdall »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #248
_heimdall wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's your biggest concern with AI, that's a perfect example of why we need ethics teams in AI companies. All of these companies are building towards AGI, the complex ethics both of how an AGI is used and what rights it might have as an intelligent being go well beyond racist slurs.

Certainly but have any of the AI ethics teams at these big companies done any work on those bigger ethical issues, or is it all language control?

I don't know enough about the teams unfortunately. My gut says no and that they're more PR than AI ethics, but that might be unfairly cynical.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#302

Post by tyrfing »

criley2 wrote: post #230
gcr wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the people I’ve seen doing responsible AI say they have a hell of a time getting anyone to care about responsibility, ethics, and bias. of course the worst case is when this responsibility is both outsourced (“oh it’s the rAI team’s job to worry about it”) and disempowered (e.g. any rAI team without the ability to unilaterally put the brakes on product decisions) unfortunately, the idea that AI people effectively sel…

The idea that any for-profit company can self-govern without external accountability is also magical thinking A "Responsible AI Team" at a for-profit was always marketing (sleight of hand) to manipulate users. Just see OpenAI today: safety vs profit, who wins?

> Just see OpenAI today: safety vs profit, who wins?

Safety pretty clearly won the board fight. OpenAI started the year with 9 board members, and end it with 4, 4 of the 5 who left being interested in commercialization. Half of the current board members are also on the board of GovAI, dedicated to AI safety.

Don't forget that many people would consider "responsible AI" to mean "no AI until X-risk is zero", and that any non-safety research at all is irresponsible. Particularly if any of it is made public.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#304

Post by _heimdall »

nyokodo wrote: post #247
_heimdall wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As independent as any other government oversight/regulation in the US, it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated.

> it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated. Which is also the probable fate of an AGI super intelligence being regulated by humans.

If we actually create an AGI, it will view us much like we view other animals/insects/plants.

People often get wrapped up around an AGI's incentive structure and what intentions it will have, but IMO we have just as much chance of controlling it as wild rabbits have controlling humans.

It will be a massive leap in intelligence, likely with concepts and ways of understanding reality that either never considered or aren't capable of. Again, that's *if* we make an AGI not these LLM machine learning algorithms being paraded around as AI.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#305

Post by _heimdall »

fho wrote: post #260
_heimdall wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As independent as any other government oversight/regulation in the US, it'd either be directly run or heavily influenced by those being regulated.

Not an economist, but that does not sound bad in general. Best case you have several companies that: (a) have the knowledge to make sensible rulings and (b) have an interest that non of their direct competitors gain any unfair advantages.

Economists actually shouldn't even be included in regulatory considerations in my opinion. If they are then regulators must be balancing the regulation that on its own seems necessary with the economic impact of proper regulation.

It hasn't worked for the airline industry, pharmaceutical companies, banks, or big tech to name a few. I don't think its wise for us to keep trying the same strategy.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#306

Post by pixl97 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #224
ben_w wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what religion in general, and becoming a Doctor of Theology in particular, is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Theology

Quite possibly yes, and I personally grew up in a cult of Bible lawyers so I can imagine it, but here we are talking corporate ethics (an oxymoron) and AI alignment, which are independent of religion.

I mean, personally I see most religious ethics as oxymoronic too, at least in the sense of general ethics that would apply across heterogenous populations. Companies and religions typically have a set of ethics optimized for their best interests.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#307

Post by latency-guy2 »

fatherzine wrote: post #121
peyton wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re talking about making sure chatbots don’t say “nigger,” not bioweapons. At some point you need to trust that the people using the tools are adults.

not sure it's fair to trivialize ai risks. for just one example, the pen is mightier than the sword.

A saying is not true just because it's repeated, especially when you have your own interpretation and I have mine.

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#308

Post by [deleted] »

Simon_ORourke wrote: post #76

AI is a tool, and there's about as much point as having some team fretting about responsible usage as there is having similar notions in a Bazooka manufacturer. Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) will always dictate how and where the particular tool is used. Many of these AI Ethics foundations (e.g., DAIR), just seem to advocate rent seeking behavior, scraping out a role for themselves off the backs of o…

[deleted]

Re: Meta disbanded its Responsible AI team

#309

Post by [deleted] »

seanhunter wrote: post #70

It never made any organizational sense for me to have a "responsible AI team" in the first place. Every team doing AI work should be responsible and should think about the ethical (and legal at a bare minimum baseline) dimension of what they are doing. Having that concentrated in a single team means that team becomes a bottleneck where they have to vet all AI work everyone else does for responsibility and/or everyone…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN