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

Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

platformer.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 466 posts

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#441

Post by hughesjj »

peppermint_gum wrote: post #83
paramount wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think the push for ethics in AI is important. As much as these functions do get sidelined in the prioritization process as outlined in the parent comment, the intent of introducing the rigor is valid.

I agree AI ethics is important, but unfortunately, the field is dominated by frauds. Do you remember the drama[1] with Google's AI ethics team? Here's a sample of the "research" they were producing: https://s10251.pcdn.co/pdf/2021-bender-parrots.pdf [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timnit_Gebru#Exit_from_Google

How is Timnit a fraud? Why are you scare quoting "research"? It's well written imo and has over 128 sources.

I'd think that in light of all the problems we've seen with chatGPT "hallucinating" answers it reinforces their concerns about "stochastic parrots" more than anything.

I mean, if you have specific grievances, please do share them as this is an important conversation, but as of now your comment amounts to mudslinging and no substance.

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#442

Post by bundie »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #31

Too bad Microsoft did not have an "Ethical Office Team" back when Microsoft Office was first released. Think of how many hurtful words have been typed into Word documents. Think of all the PowerPoints that were used to mislead people. Think of all the people that were tricked out of their money looking at an Excel spreadsheet with non-factual numbers.

So....are you saying that ethical AI teams are not needed?

> Too bad Microsoft did not have an "Ethical Office Team" back when Microsoft Office was first released.

What does this even mean? And how does this relate to ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE? The content was HUMAN-generated, so if you used MS Word to write something messed up, that's on you. Now, if a Microsoft bot generates something messed up, that is different.

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#443

Post by Nasrudith »

AstralStorm wrote: post #266
kalium-xyz wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same risk as hiring a troll farm now

Troll farm is limited number of people with limited capability. These can be tracked down and shut down, their enployers as well. The effects of a troll farm are relatively predictable which is why they're used. It's somewhat rare that anything really unpredictable results from small scale social engineering of this kind.

I must strongly disagree here about unpredictable results from social engineering. Vladmir Lenin was deliberately let through Germany because they figured he would just weaken the tsar. It is hard to get smaller than one person or more unpredictable in impact with many others.

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#444

Post by Nasrudith »

dweinus wrote: post #411
anonylizard wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. People should understand AI safety != AI ethics. AI safety has two branches, AI ethics and AI alignment. Those two branches despise each other with intense passion. The alignment branch (responsible for developing RLHF->ChatGPT) believes AI ethics is completely trivial, and distracts attention away from existential risks. The ethics branch (responsible for all the media attention about racist AIs/bias etc) view…

> It seems increasingly that the concerns from the ethics branch have not come to pass at all. Nonsense, there are countless ethical and alignment harms in the wild, and have been for many years. For example: - midjourney ripping off artists = ethical harm - google search telling people to throw batteries in the ocean = alignment harm - Buzzfeed slashing staff and replacing them with chatgpt = ethical harm - google p…

But do the ethicists or alignmentists do anything to actually reduce or prevent the harm? Most of the cases they are useful as nipples on breastplates because they did nothing but yell at the problem post-hoc that they should have been more careful and had more foresight. Meanwhile leader incentives already decided on the bad outcome.

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#445

Post by Nasrudith »

CatWChainsaw wrote: post #397
college_physics wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft is very aware thanks, that is comforting > the cat is out of the bag even if you don't like it thanks for bullying us around > the legitimately talented AI thinkers who exactly authorised you to project legitimacy in a space that has not seen any regulation?

Seriously. Why is it that in a forum skewed libertarian techbros, there's this nigh-religious faith that corporations will not only get AI right, but get its impacts on society right? You know, with their stellar track record and all. To me this is just another of countless demonstrations of silicon valley ego/hubris.

Wait? you think you know better than thousands of other people who dedicate their lives to the topic, assume ideology and attack them with slurs and you think /they/ are the ones with too much ego and hubris? Dunning-Kruger effect much?

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#446

Post by fooker »

JohnFen wrote: post #371
fooker wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capacitors just don’t work after a while. To get most old computers working, you have to surgically replace all capacitors first.

Yes, but most capacitors last more than 20 years. I've never had to recap a computer that young.

Are you perhaps from a place with relatively low humidity?

20 years is really stretching it, when it comes to the life of cheap capacitors anywhere in the lower latitudes.

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#447

Post by happymellon »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #9

These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…

Completely agree.

It's the same as having "security" outside of the team, it becomes an us Vs them mentality.

How can we work around this new unannounced security/diversity requirement to get our product out of the door in the timescales that have been demanded of us?

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#448

Post by college_physics »

Nasrudith wrote: post #445
CatWChainsaw wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Why is it that in a forum skewed libertarian techbros, there's this nigh-religious faith that corporations will not only get AI right, but get its impacts on society right? You know, with their stellar track record and all. To me this is just another of countless demonstrations of silicon valley ego/hubris.

Wait? you think you know better than thousands of other people who dedicate their lives to the topic, assume ideology and attack them with slurs and you think /they/ are the ones with too much ego and hubris? Dunning-Kruger effect much?

> thousands of other people who dedicate their lives to the topic

to make it plain to you, there were thousands of slave traders who dedicated their lives to the topic, including e.g. how to optimally fill-up the ship with bodies. what does this prove?

the idea that meticulous pursuit of a domain somehow gives it its experts the moral high ground or ensures that they will keep it safe for society is so bizarre and alarming it only reinforces the notion that a bunch of people have become completely unhinged

AI practitioners have already proved themselves untrustworthy by putting themselves in the service of entities that invaded privacy and engaged in large scale algorithmic manipulation of e.g. voting. This is not an assumption. Its a dire fact.

More broadly, corporate structures have repeatedly proved themselves untrustworthy, both in the small, with scandals and fraud and at-large, with regulatory capture that ensured their negative impacts on society could go unhindered for decades

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#449

Post by CatWChainsaw »

Nasrudith wrote: post #445
CatWChainsaw wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Why is it that in a forum skewed libertarian techbros, there's this nigh-religious faith that corporations will not only get AI right, but get its impacts on society right? You know, with their stellar track record and all. To me this is just another of countless demonstrations of silicon valley ego/hubris.

Wait? you think you know better than thousands of other people who dedicate their lives to the topic, assume ideology and attack them with slurs and you think /they/ are the ones with too much ego and hubris? Dunning-Kruger effect much?

Did I hit a nerve of yours? Maybe you see a little too much of yourself in my comment? If you think that the risk of getting technology catastrophically wrong is more than a passing philosophical diversion to your "thousands", when we've all heard "move fast and break things" ad nauseum, maybe you should be examining your DK blind spots instead of accusing someone else of the same.

Also, is "libertarian techbro" a slur now? Or are you just resentful that I compared faith in progress to faith in a deity?

Re: Microsoft lays off one of its responsible AI teams

#450

Post by CatWChainsaw »

wskinner wrote: post #75
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #9

These sorts of adjunct, off-to-the-side "ethics" teams are always corporate window dressing, and when push comes to shove they always get jettisoned when competition demands an increase in speed. I don't mean to start a flame war, but this is a reason why I think "Chief Diversity Officers" are such an ill-conceived notion. It's not that I don't think diversity in corporate environments is extremely valuable, but it's…

Ethical AI teams and CDOs both serve an important business purpose. It's just not the same as their nominal purpose. And like every other part of a business, once they outlive their usefulness, they are vulnerable to being cut.

Is it amusing or ominous that Chief Diversity Officers and Collateralized Debt Obligations share an acronym? :)
Post reply on HN