4 ms·

'no indication that Schmidt broke any ethics rules' dunno man, writing regulations for an industry I am about to invest in sounds like a breach of something

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I don't think so. Schmidt didn't approve them and make them law. Telling your legislator what you want and proposing something that makes you happy isn't a breach of anything. That is to say, there is no conflict of interest when you are only representing yourself or your opinions
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  Not disclosing a conflict of interest is unethical.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    Was it something already in the works? Seems a bit much to want people to disclose potential future investments.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    His conflict of interest is expected, it is why they picked him. It is a commission of mostly industry leaders telling the government what policy they want. https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/ https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      His expertise is expected and it may be reasonable for him to have such a conflict of interest. But it should still be disclosed.
      - iinnPP 4y ago
        It should be part of a process with transparency baked in as well. Seems like a no brainer so I must be missing a lot of knowledge that only the people in these situations are privy to.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        They picked them because he's an AI investor venture capitalist. It comes with the territory. Just like how they picked Executives of Microsoft Amazon Oracle and a dozen other companies developing AI.
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        If it comes with the territory then just disclose it and move on.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        "I am an AI VC and invest in AI companies, AI regulation and funding impacts companies I invest in"
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Here's my investment portfolio, I'd like to highlight companies X, Y and Z. It's not unreasonable to ask for specifics and to expect those specifics to be updated when the conflict of interest changes. This smacks of people just not wanting to be held to task for unethical behavior. "well you should have known" isn't a reasonable defense when not saying something is a form of lie.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I still dont understand the purpose of disclosure. It makes sense if you are trying to prevent conflicts of interest or self dealing. However, in this instance, the purpose is to cater to their interests and deal to them.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  It is possible to perform a legal action which doesn't violate any rules and which is simply unethical (the conclusion of the government ethics advisors in this case). If the council's remit is to advise on "how to enhance American competitiveness on AI against its adversaries, build the AI workforce of the future, and develop data and ethical procedures", anyone on the council can shape policy that will pick winners and losers in the marketplace based on that "advice". You then have to wonder to whose benefit the advise really is.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The intent of the council is not and never was to provide unbiased advice. "The commission was, by design, an outside advisory group of industry participants, and its other members included well-known tech executives including Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy and Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Eric Horvitz, among others." Personal financial interests in the field was his basis for selection in the first place, and who he represents. You might not like that, but that is the purpose of the commission. Look at the commissioners yourself [1]. https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/ https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/
    - nescioquid 4y ago
      Seems unpersuasive to me since one now has to sweep under the rug the fact that the government's own ethics advisors find "a huge conflict of interest" in this matter. Your quote says "industry participants" but suddenly "personal financial interest" becomes the basis for selection to this advisory board. So what could those government ethics advisors be on about?
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Government ethics advisors are obviously concerned about the industry staffed commissions. I think that's a fair question whether we should enpanel a dozen AI Tech CEOs to draft our legislation. What I object to, is turning into a hit piece against ceos, when the government explicitly sought out CEOs and executives with financial interest. If you go out and ask a dozen CEOs what they want, they're going to tell you what they want, and they should.
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  The person who writes a proposal decides the framework of thought. If the reader (in these cases the legislators) are not expert enough in the field, they can think that the the framework is unbiased and the correct one to think under. This is why it is unethical to not declare any conflicts when making a proposal. It hides your biases which will likely feed into the framework.
- ljw1001 4y ago
  Telling your legislator what you want while being a billionaire is one of the main reasons why we can’t have an actual democracy

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I don't think so. Schmidt didn't approve them and make them law. Telling your legislator what you want and proposing something that makes you happy isn't a breach of anything. That is to say, there is no conflict of interest when you are only representing yourself or your opinions

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
Not disclosing a conflict of interest is unethical.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Was it something already in the works? Seems a bit much to want people to disclose potential future investments.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  His conflict of interest is expected, it is why they picked him. It is a commission of mostly industry leaders telling the government what policy they want. https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/ https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    His expertise is expected and it may be reasonable for him to have such a conflict of interest. But it should still be disclosed.
    - iinnPP 4y ago
      It should be part of a process with transparency baked in as well. Seems like a no brainer so I must be missing a lot of knowledge that only the people in these situations are privy to.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      They picked them because he's an AI investor venture capitalist. It comes with the territory. Just like how they picked Executives of Microsoft Amazon Oracle and a dozen other companies developing AI.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        If it comes with the territory then just disclose it and move on.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        "I am an AI VC and invest in AI companies, AI regulation and funding impacts companies I invest in"
        P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Here's my investment portfolio, I'd like to highlight companies X, Y and Z. It's not unreasonable to ask for specifics and to expect those specifics to be updated when the conflict of interest changes. This smacks of people just not wanting to be held to task for unethical behavior. "well you should have known" isn't a reasonable defense when not saying something is a form of lie.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I still dont understand the purpose of disclosure. It makes sense if you are trying to prevent conflicts of interest or self dealing. However, in this instance, the purpose is to cater to their interests and deal to them.
nescioquid 4y ago
It is possible to perform a legal action which doesn't violate any rules and which is simply unethical (the conclusion of the government ethics advisors in this case). If the council's remit is to advise on "how to enhance American competitiveness on AI against its adversaries, build the AI workforce of the future, and develop data and ethical procedures", anyone on the council can shape policy that will pick winners and losers in the marketplace based on that "advice". You then have to wonder to whose benefit the advise really is.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  The intent of the council is not and never was to provide unbiased advice. "The commission was, by design, an outside advisory group of industry participants, and its other members included well-known tech executives including Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy and Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Eric Horvitz, among others." Personal financial interests in the field was his basis for selection in the first place, and who he represents. You might not like that, but that is the purpose of the commission. Look at the commissioners yourself [1]. https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/ https://www.nscai.gov/commissioners/
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    Seems unpersuasive to me since one now has to sweep under the rug the fact that the government's own ethics advisors find "a huge conflict of interest" in this matter. Your quote says "industry participants" but suddenly "personal financial interest" becomes the basis for selection to this advisory board. So what could those government ethics advisors be on about?
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Government ethics advisors are obviously concerned about the industry staffed commissions. I think that's a fair question whether we should enpanel a dozen AI Tech CEOs to draft our legislation. What I object to, is turning into a hit piece against ceos, when the government explicitly sought out CEOs and executives with financial interest. If you go out and ask a dozen CEOs what they want, they're going to tell you what they want, and they should.
abdullahkhalids 4y ago
The person who writes a proposal decides the framework of thought. If the reader (in these cases the legislators) are not expert enough in the field, they can think that the the framework is unbiased and the correct one to think under. This is why it is unethical to not declare any conflicts when making a proposal. It hides your biases which will likely feed into the framework.
ljw1001 4y ago
Telling your legislator what you want while being a billionaire is one of the main reasons why we can’t have an actual democracy