4 ms·

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

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.

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.