501–505 of 505 posts
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…
What a long-term planning
The same company that refuses to acknowledge that it let its own greed and temptation to own the entire economy abandon its non-profit Manhattan Project? At the expense of disrupting the economic well being of 95% of humanity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does AI ethics even mean? They can't fully control the model, it does stuff even with instructions not to. And sometimes it's clear safety mechanisms overcorrect and make the model useless in some situations. I tried asking Claude about some scenario's for a security hole we fixed to see how it would respond, it refused to talk to me seemingly assuming I was trying to introduce a hole that was now fixed. It just…
> What does AI ethics even mean? It's a broad statement and can mean different things depending where you are in that chain. You have design and compliance. Compliance is what you are allowed to do (laws). Design is how you construct your applications to understand how it will impact the people directly or indirectly. Then you have the accountability, transparency, auditing and reproducing. Understanding why the mode…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this were true, food companies wouldn’t have a Regulatory team. Except every single one of them does, and they function similarly to how you describe, but without dissolving. They’re treated as a constraint that must be checked before major projects can advance. Sometimes they’re the longest-lead item on a new project and if you don’t get them involved early, your project can sink at a late stage after great expen…
I don’t view that team as saying “No”. Instead, I view that team as saying “Customers expect safe food. Our job is to help you deliver on that”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And how is the corollary from the argument you just presented that neither side needs to provide evidence? It's not. I have no idea how you got there. The right thing is to seek evidence for both perspectives. This is ironically not rocket science. Don't accept any viewpoint just on say-so, but especially don't pretend to sneering objectivity when you do so.
I got there because somebody asked for evidence for a certain viewpoint and you seemed to push back against this ask by suggesting that if you ask for evidence, you need to demand it from both sides. As if somebody failing to do that doesn't entitle them to any evidence from anybody. > Don't accept any viewpoint just on say-so Exactly. That's why they asked for a citation. A response providing such citation is more a…
Accepting something without evidence and only challenging things that disagree with your evidence-less beliefs is the exact opposite of even-handed.