3 ms·

On your last point, that’s precisely what Lemoine very cogently argues in an interview with Emily Chang [1]. To paraphrase, he points out the absurdity in Googl

On your last point, that’s precisely what Lemoine very cogently argues in an interview with Emily Chang [1]. To paraphrase, he points out the absurdity in Google’s position, that a sentient AI cannot have been created, because they have a policy against creating sentient AIs. Whether LaMDA demonstrates sentience is not even a clearly formulated proposition, yet the work bullishly charges ahead behind closed doors. He is anyway trying to stimulate a broader conversation on AI ethics. > Chang: Why does this matter? Why should we be talking about whether a robot has rights? > Lemoine: So, to be honest, I don’t think we should, I don’t think that should be the focus. The fact is, Google is being dismissive of these concerns, the exact same way they have been dismissive of every other ethical concern AI ethicists have raised. > Lemoine: All the individual people at Google care. It’s the systemic processes that are protecting business interests over human concerns, that creates this pervasive environment of irresponsible technology development. > Chang: Big tech companies are controlling the development of this technology. […] How big a problem is that? > Lemoine: It’s a huge problem because […] if you think about the pervasiveness of Google search, people are going to use this product more and more over the years […] and the corporate policies about how these chatbots are allowed to talk about important topics like values, rights, and religion, will affect how people think about these things, how they engage with those topics, and these policies are being decided by a handful of people, in rooms that the public doesn’t get access to. [1]: https://youtu.be/kgCUn4fQTsc https://youtu.be/kgCUn4fQTsc

sameers 4y ago
Hey,thanks for the link, really interesting. Lol, though, on the quote from Lemoine, "All the individual people at Google care." I know some individual people at Google who _don't_ care, at least, they don't care about the philosophical implications of the ethical issues they are creating. They care only about, or at least much more about, the profit making implications of what their business units are creating. They particularly believe that any public deliberation about Google's right to behave as it does, is itself the greatest moral failure, and not Google's behavior itself. I don't know why there's this meme among Google employees that ALL their fellow employees are starry-eyed do-gooders. Plenty of folks at the top are avaricious douches.
- pawsforthought 4y ago
  Hah, well, yes. I think he was trying to show good faith in his position, and respect for former colleagues, but yes, the individuals must at some level be fine with what they’re doing. In fact, the very notion is a dangerous and absurd one, that a corporation can do bad things without the individuals it comprises having done bad things. Sadly that notion is enshrined in corporate law, and commitment to it is amply demonstrated by the impunity of bankers in the wake of the subprime crisis, to give one example.

sameers 4y ago

Hey,thanks for the link, really interesting. Lol, though, on the quote from Lemoine, "All the individual people at Google care." I know some individual people at Google who _don't_ care, at least, they don't care about the philosophical implications of the ethical issues they are creating. They care only about, or at least much more about, the profit making implications of what their business units are creating. They particularly believe that any public deliberation about Google's right to behave as it does, is itself the greatest moral failure, and not Google's behavior itself. I don't know why there's this meme among Google employees that ALL their fellow employees are starry-eyed do-gooders. Plenty of folks at the top are avaricious douches.

pawsforthought 4y ago
Hah, well, yes. I think he was trying to show good faith in his position, and respect for former colleagues, but yes, the individuals must at some level be fine with what they’re doing. In fact, the very notion is a dangerous and absurd one, that a corporation can do bad things without the individuals it comprises having done bad things. Sadly that notion is enshrined in corporate law, and commitment to it is amply demonstrated by the impunity of bankers in the wake of the subprime crisis, to give one example.