3 ms·

> when really their starting point is 'silence' and they really don't have to do anything at all. They can't have their cake and eat it too; if they want hire

> when really their starting point is 'silence' and they really don't have to do anything at all. They can't have their cake and eat it too; if they want hire people to do AI ethics research, and then censor them for doing their job, then they should get called out for ethics-washing, which is exactly what's happening. I don't know why so many people love to defend power, especially when that power is not benevolent.

jariel 6y ago
"and then censor them for doing their job" This is false. The requirement for a fairly light review process, and asking for more, truthful, factual and contextualizing information to be disclosed is not censorship. Nobody is suppressing research, or even asking that specific opinions or results be changed. The commenter above used the term 'draconian' to refer to this process, which is just superlatively false. "I don't know why so many people love to defend power, especially when that power is not benevolent." How is this power not benevolent exactly? What's 'hard to understand' is the petulance and irreverence people have for the offices and responsibilities they hold, and the lack of professionalism in their conduct. This should have been an easy issue to address by any mature researcher who cared about working with others to achieve positive outcomes - instead of trying to force their opinion on an organization, or engender public support for their career. There are plenty of reasonable voices at the table for 'Ethics in AI' nobody has a magic wand in this equation.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  But they didn’t ask for more factual and contextualizing information. She wasn’t given a chance to revise the paper to include that. It was just canned.