7 ms·

AI is a tool, and there's about as much point as having some team fretting about responsible usage as there is having similar notions in a Bazooka manufacturer.

AI is a tool, and there's about as much point as having some team fretting about responsible usage as there is having similar notions in a Bazooka manufacturer. Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) will always dictate how and where the particular tool is used. Many of these AI Ethics foundations (e.g., DAIR), just seem to advocate rent seeking behavior, scraping out a role for themselves off the backs of others who do the actual technical (and indeed ethical) work. I'm sure the Meta Responsible AI team was staffed with similar semi-literate blowhards, all stance and no actual work.

petters 3y ago
If the bazooka manufacturer only offers shooting rockets through an API where they can check the target before launching, they would be able to have some say about which targets are hit. > Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) This is not the user in most cases. So a responsible AI can make sense. I believe you don't think AI can be dangerous, but some people do and from their point of view having a team for this makes sense.
sureglymop 3y ago
It's not really the same as a bazooka. These companies usually release AI models, for which the training phase is arguably more important than the usage phase when it comes to ethics. It would be like if the manufacturer pre-calibrated the bazooka for a certain target. Sure, whoever uses it after may still use it in another, unethical way but the point is there is already a bias. It is important to consider ethical implications of the training materials used, especially when scraping the internet for material. Now, is a whole team needed? Maybe not, but you can't dismiss it that easily.
Retric 3y ago
Fretting about the responsible use of bio weapons is a waste of time, it’s a weapon and like Bazooka manufactures we don’t need to worry about ethics… See that’s the thing you can say A is like B, but that doesn’t actually make them the same thing. AI has new implications because it’s a new thing, some of those are overblown, but others need to be carefully considered. Companies are getting sued for their training data, chances are they’re going to win but lawsuits aren’t free. Managing such risks ahead of time can be a lot cheaper than yelling yolo and forging ahead.
- junofan 3y ago
  We’re talking about making sure chatbots don’t say “nigger,” not bioweapons. At some point you need to trust that the people using the tools are adults.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Facebook has far bigger issues than that, such as peoples medical information getting released or potentially getting it wrong. Privacy might not be well protected in the US but defamation lawsuits are no joke. So training on people’s private chat history isn’t necessarily safe. Even just the realization that ‘Logs from a chatbot conversation can go viral’ has actual real world implications.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - fatherzine 3y ago
    not sure it's fair to trivialize ai risks. for just one example, the pen is mightier than the sword.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      Counterpoint: sticks and stones
    - junofan 3y ago
      I’m not trivializing risks. I’m characterizing output. These systems aren’t theoretical anymore. They’re used by hundreds of millions of people daily in one form or another. What are these teams accomplishing? Give me a concrete example of a harm prevented. “Pen is mightier than the sword” is an aphorism.
      - fatherzine 3y ago
        oh, these teams are useless bureaucratic busybodies that only mask the real issue: ai is explosively powerful, and nobody has the slightest clue on how to steward that power and avoid the pain ai will unfortunately unleash.
torginus 3y ago
I dislike the weapon analogy, because it implies that proliferation of AI (ergo everyone running an LLM on their PCs for code completion or for the ability to speak to a home assistant) is akin to everybody having a cache of unlicensed firearms. It has been the agenda of most FAANG corporations (with the notable exception of Apple) to turn the computers average people own into mere thin clients with all the computing resources. Luckily, before the cloud era, the idea that people can and should own powerful personal computers was the normal. If PCs were invented today, I guess there would be people raising ethical concerns about regular citizens owning PCs that can hack into NASA.
- JoshuaDavid 3y ago
  There were in fact concerns about normal people having access to strong cryptography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
- _heimdall 3y ago
  People running LLM should at least feel more comfortable there. LLMs simply aren't AI, they're machine learning (at least with the models we currently have)
makeitdouble 3y ago
> Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) will always dictate how and where the particular tool is used. Your take confuses me, because in this case the owner is Meta. So yes, they have to think about what tools they make ("should we design a bazooka") and how they'll use what they made ("what's the target and when to pull the trigger ?") They disbanded the team that was tasked with thinking about both. From the article: > RAI was created to identify problems with its AI training approaches, including whether the company’s models are trained with adequately diverse information, with an eye toward preventing things like moderation issues on its platforms. Automated systems on Meta’s social platforms have led to problems like a Facebook translation issue that caused a false arrest
- vasco 3y ago
  You will notice the goal of the team wasn't to make the world a better place, it was to reduce customer support / moderation costs.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    Yes. I think that's par for the course, most decisions and team management will be aimed either at producing revenue or reducing cost. HR isn't there for employee happiness either, strictly speaking they'll do what's needed to attract employees, reduce retention cost through non monetary measures, and potentially shield the company from lawsuits and other damages.
renewiltord 3y ago
I agree with you about AI ethicists (and in general someone whose job is only ethics is usually a grifter) but OpenAI’s safety team was a red team (at least a few months ago), testing its ability to escape boxes by giving it almost the power to. They were the guys who had the famous “watch the AI lie to the Upworker I hired so he’ll do the work” guys. So the structure matters. Ethicists who produce papers on why ethics matters and the like are kind of like security, compliance, and legal people at your company who can only say no to your feature. But Google’s Project Zero team is a capable team and produces output that actually help Google and everyone. In a particularly moribund organization, they really stand out. I think the model is sound. If your safety, security, compliance, and legal teams believe that the only acceptable risk is from a mud ball buried in the ground then you don’t have any of those functions because that’s doable by an EA with an autoresponder. What this effective team does is minimize your risks on this front while allowing you to build your objective.
LtWorf 3y ago
Why are weapons factories regulated and their exports very limited then?
looping8 3y ago
AI is a tool, a bazooka is not. You can use AI to create and research just as you can use it for harm, you can only the bazooka to destroy. It's a bad comparison, especially because the idea that creators of something have no responsibility about how it works is just not practical in real world. Facebook constantly has legal issues due to how people use their platform, this is them trying to prevent AI form bringing more lawsuits upon them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

petters 3y ago

If the bazooka manufacturer only offers shooting rockets through an API where they can check the target before launching, they would be able to have some say about which targets are hit. > Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) This is not the user in most cases. So a responsible AI can make sense. I believe you don't think AI can be dangerous, but some people do and from their point of view having a team for this makes sense.

sureglymop 3y ago

It's not really the same as a bazooka. These companies usually release AI models, for which the training phase is arguably more important than the usage phase when it comes to ethics. It would be like if the manufacturer pre-calibrated the bazooka for a certain target. Sure, whoever uses it after may still use it in another, unethical way but the point is there is already a bias. It is important to consider ethical implications of the training materials used, especially when scraping the internet for material. Now, is a whole team needed? Maybe not, but you can't dismiss it that easily.

Retric 3y ago

Fretting about the responsible use of bio weapons is a waste of time, it’s a weapon and like Bazooka manufactures we don’t need to worry about ethics… See that’s the thing you can say A is like B, but that doesn’t actually make them the same thing. AI has new implications because it’s a new thing, some of those are overblown, but others need to be carefully considered. Companies are getting sued for their training data, chances are they’re going to win but lawsuits aren’t free. Managing such risks ahead of time can be a lot cheaper than yelling yolo and forging ahead.

junofan 3y ago
We’re talking about making sure chatbots don’t say “nigger,” not bioweapons. At some point you need to trust that the people using the tools are adults.
- Retric 3y ago
  Facebook has far bigger issues than that, such as peoples medical information getting released or potentially getting it wrong. Privacy might not be well protected in the US but defamation lawsuits are no joke. So training on people’s private chat history isn’t necessarily safe. Even just the realization that ‘Logs from a chatbot conversation can go viral’ has actual real world implications.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- fatherzine 3y ago
  not sure it's fair to trivialize ai risks. for just one example, the pen is mightier than the sword.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Counterpoint: sticks and stones
  - junofan 3y ago
    I’m not trivializing risks. I’m characterizing output. These systems aren’t theoretical anymore. They’re used by hundreds of millions of people daily in one form or another. What are these teams accomplishing? Give me a concrete example of a harm prevented. “Pen is mightier than the sword” is an aphorism.
    - fatherzine 3y ago
      oh, these teams are useless bureaucratic busybodies that only mask the real issue: ai is explosively powerful, and nobody has the slightest clue on how to steward that power and avoid the pain ai will unfortunately unleash.

torginus 3y ago

I dislike the weapon analogy, because it implies that proliferation of AI (ergo everyone running an LLM on their PCs for code completion or for the ability to speak to a home assistant) is akin to everybody having a cache of unlicensed firearms. It has been the agenda of most FAANG corporations (with the notable exception of Apple) to turn the computers average people own into mere thin clients with all the computing resources. Luckily, before the cloud era, the idea that people can and should own powerful personal computers was the normal. If PCs were invented today, I guess there would be people raising ethical concerns about regular citizens owning PCs that can hack into NASA.

JoshuaDavid 3y ago
There were in fact concerns about normal people having access to strong cryptography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
_heimdall 3y ago
People running LLM should at least feel more comfortable there. LLMs simply aren't AI, they're machine learning (at least with the models we currently have)

makeitdouble 3y ago

> Whoever ultimately owns the AI (or the Bazooka) will always dictate how and where the particular tool is used. Your take confuses me, because in this case the owner is Meta. So yes, they have to think about what tools they make ("should we design a bazooka") and how they'll use what they made ("what's the target and when to pull the trigger ?") They disbanded the team that was tasked with thinking about both. From the article: > RAI was created to identify problems with its AI training approaches, including whether the company’s models are trained with adequately diverse information, with an eye toward preventing things like moderation issues on its platforms. Automated systems on Meta’s social platforms have led to problems like a Facebook translation issue that caused a false arrest

vasco 3y ago
You will notice the goal of the team wasn't to make the world a better place, it was to reduce customer support / moderation costs.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Yes. I think that's par for the course, most decisions and team management will be aimed either at producing revenue or reducing cost. HR isn't there for employee happiness either, strictly speaking they'll do what's needed to attract employees, reduce retention cost through non monetary measures, and potentially shield the company from lawsuits and other damages.

renewiltord 3y ago

I agree with you about AI ethicists (and in general someone whose job is only ethics is usually a grifter) but OpenAI’s safety team was a red team (at least a few months ago), testing its ability to escape boxes by giving it almost the power to. They were the guys who had the famous “watch the AI lie to the Upworker I hired so he’ll do the work” guys. So the structure matters. Ethicists who produce papers on why ethics matters and the like are kind of like security, compliance, and legal people at your company who can only say no to your feature. But Google’s Project Zero team is a capable team and produces output that actually help Google and everyone. In a particularly moribund organization, they really stand out. I think the model is sound. If your safety, security, compliance, and legal teams believe that the only acceptable risk is from a mud ball buried in the ground then you don’t have any of those functions because that’s doable by an EA with an autoresponder. What this effective team does is minimize your risks on this front while allowing you to build your objective.

LtWorf 3y ago

Why are weapons factories regulated and their exports very limited then?

looping8 3y ago

AI is a tool, a bazooka is not. You can use AI to create and research just as you can use it for harm, you can only the bazooka to destroy. It's a bad comparison, especially because the idea that creators of something have no responsibility about how it works is just not practical in real world. Facebook constantly has legal issues due to how people use their platform, this is them trying to prevent AI form bringing more lawsuits upon them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]