301–310 of 379 posts
Head of ethics at Meta then head of Ethics at OpenAI. Sorry, but if that doesn’t scream useless puffy PR positioning then I don’t know what does. What’s next? Head of ethics for United Healthcare?
Head of ethics at Meta then head of Ethics at OpenAI. Sorry, but if that doesn’t scream useless puffy PR positioning then I don’t know what does. What’s next? Head of ethics for United Healthcare?
- graduate degree in ethics from an obscure diploma mill
- Experience in PR
- Crisis Management
- Public Speaking
- Agentic management of *flexible ethics initiatives*
- 5+ years experience as an executive character in workplace education films, or commensurate experience as a human mannequin.
— Personal aesthetic that could be described as “dork that can afford a personal shopper.”Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until you accept that they didn't 'easily become homeless' the problem will continue. They used drugs and spiraled, usually over the course of many months or years, forced all their friends to turn their backs on them, got kicked out of any living situations they had access to because of drug/alcohol use or theft to support the same and finally ended up on the street. On the street they have access to almost endless…
Perhaps you aren't aware, but only about a third of homeless people are drug addicts, from the surveys I've seen.
1. Widen the definition of 'homeless' to cover people that nobody would consider homeless in every day language. Include anyone who is staying with a friend, living in corporate housing, staying with a family member, etc. Include anyone you possibly can that is unlikely to be a drug addict.
2. Narrow the definition of homeless. Don't consider people that almost everyone does consider homeless. Make sure to target the subgroups of homeless people that are very likely to use drugs.
3. Narrow the definition of drug use. Make it as hard as possible to count someone as having used drugs. Raise the evidentiary bar so high that even when you have evidence they are a drug addict it doesn't qualify them as a "drug addict" by the studies definition. Bury that definition so it's technically there but you have to go through the study carefully to find it.
Lets pick a study in a big important journal and check it for the above:
How about CASPEH: "Illicit Substance Use and Treatment Access Among Adults Experiencing Homelessness," JAMA, 2025
JAMA is a very prestigious journal:
Who counts as a substance user: Only meth, nonprescription opioids, cocaine/crack count as addictions. Cannabis, alcohol, benzos, hallucinogens, inhalants are excluded.
Someone who has a valid prescription to opiates, even if they are being abused, cannot be methodologically counted as a drug user. THIS INCLUDES METHADONE.
What counts as addict: "Regular" = 3+ times per week. A twice-weekly meth user is 'occasional use'. They might take a gram and stay up for 3 days twice a week, but they are 'occasional user' and don't count in the 37% addict number quoted by this paper.
What counts as addict: Last 6 months only. If you admit you used fentanyl every day for the last 10 years but claim you got clean 181 days ago, you are not a drug user according to this study. If they have been diverted from heroin onto methadone 181 days ago you do not count.
How did they check? They asked each person face to face whether they used drugs and which ones and how often and just took their word for it.
The real numbers from the raw data the study used:
41.6% of homeless self reported 2x per week or more hard drug use before they became homeless. an additional 23.2% claimed they started regular use after becoming homeless.
That's about 65% already from their own data, 2x what the headline pretends.
Excluding high use subgroups: to be included in the data, the homeless person had to prove they were giving informed consent. Then they additionally had to be willing and able to spend 45 minutes or so filling out the survey. The people with psychosis or who were intoxicated at the time of the interview were excluded. How many people have you walked past and they were incoherent, unconscious, or high? They were ignored in this study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ethicists who see their job as publishing papers and acting as philosophy professors, sure, but someone has to own the training and eval suite for how AI thinks about trolley problems.
Why? Are trolley problems making it hard to make money?
In five years, I'd love to read a book about the history of AI ethics. I suspect it will read like Voltaire. My sense is that it is radically shifting from a fluffy marketing arm to a department expected to contribute meaningfully to development and justify its impact. I would expect an ethics team to build frameworks that can help train/eval the model that the company spend millions of dollars and months training is…
I think you’re confusing Voltaire with the Marquis de Sade and Machiavelli
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think this is rats fleeing a sinking ship? She probably just got a better offer somewhere else
staying for less than a year usually means you don't take any equity with you, it must've been an incredible offer in that case, since those openai shares are a golden ticket right now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think AI ethicists will be pushed out entirely after (before?) the money really starts rolling in. Ethical concerns interfere with profit margins.
The ethicists who see their job as publishing papers and acting as philosophy professors, sure, but someone has to own the training and eval suite for how AI thinks about trolley problems.
In five years, I'd love to read a book about the history of AI ethics. I suspect it will read like Voltaire. My sense is that it is radically shifting from a fluffy marketing arm to a department expected to contribute meaningfully to development and justify its impact. I would expect an ethics team to build frameworks that can help train/eval the model that the company spend millions of dollars and months training is…
The goal of an ethics team will be to provide cover for problems created by decisions or suggestions of an llm. They will need to be able to say "We trained it to consider ethical considerations by " . We tested by . They will use "industry standard practices", they will have tested it somehow, and will be sure to be on the board of some group that is building toothless "ai ethical tests" for llms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Palantir? So many choices right now.
Or the US government
https://theonion.com/palantir-acquires-pentagon-for-800-bill...