4 ms·

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be a

The main issue here is that the engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Until that can be achieved, alternative options that generate more value will always be prioritised. Such is only the logical turn of events.

fungiblecog 3y ago
[flagged]
Terr_ 3y ago
> engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Does the primary responsibility for that really fall on engineers in the first place? It just feels a little victim blame-y to me. Shouldn't most of the culpability fall on those stakeholders who don't want to be convinced because it means lower feature-velocity or less investor-profit?
- Barrin92 3y ago
  Primary? Debatable. But you do have responsibility for what you build, who you build it for and what and who you enable with your expertise. And engineers do have plenty of that, so they have plenty of reponsibility too.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    Oh, everyone has some contributory involvement, but I find it hard to imagine the same kind of standard being widely applied to other employee-experts in other industries. I mean, do we blame food chemists for "failing to convince stakeholders" that the candy-company should use ethically sourced fair-trade chocolate and less sugar? Or mechanical engineers for "failing to convince stakeholders" that the oil-company should avoid drilling in areas that are environmentally-sensitive or controlled by warlords of questionable legitimacy? No, we recognize that a laborer having specialized-skills doesn't automatically mean the corporate-machine is interested in their other opinions. (Unless they're visibly documenting problems that could someday harm the company in a potential lawsuit, in which case they tend to get laid off.)
smcleod 3y ago
This is a really good point that isn't raised nearly enough.
threeseed 3y ago
a) I don't think CEOs of multi-billion companies care about the opinions of engineers in general let alone the morality of ethics versus revenue. b) CEOs typically will do whatever it takes to maximise revenue, past the point of what is ethical/moral, up until they hit the limit of whether it's illegal. And then most but not all will stop. I'm hopeful but doubtful that AI will be any different.
fatherzine 3y ago
picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders. the metrics are misaligned. smart and wise people spent 2000 years seeking an workaround for this problem. there is none. there are only convoluted excuses.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders "The paperclip maximiser was great up until it turned the solar system into paperclips. Thankfully, a few of us were aware of the risk and escaped to a nearby solar system. It's not as nice as the first one, but it'll do. Now, who wants to buy some paperclips? :)"
- nitwit005 3y ago
  People are annoyed that you're correct. If picking the ethical choice maximized corporate profits, the Earth would have become a utopia a hundreds of years ago.
nitwit005 3y ago
If they cared, they could sit down with the engineers and make sure they understand, or have one of their underlings do that and make a summary for them. They generally don't care about the opinions of engineers that much, except to estimate the cost and practicality of different ideas.
swatcoder 3y ago
Yes, the irony is that corporations (and all other collectives) already represent AGI in that they can pass all the same tests and assume all the same roles as any human, when given the same kind of accomodations we give to these technological systems. And we've already let those AGI align themselves predominantly on "profit" In their worry about a new AGI that they may never actually discover, the apocolypts are being stymied by the one that's already there and that's already working to take over the world.
- trees101 3y ago
  this is a perceptive comment. There's a lot of conversation around this, one term used is "Egregore" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ2h7FYLTwg&t=8m30s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ2h7FYLTwg&t=8m30s https://youtu.be/FY4Fil_nB_c?t=4592 https://youtu.be/FY4Fil_nB_c?t=4592
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    I wonder how long before we're hearing about egregores in common parlance. Corporations are already acknowledged as having freedom of speech in America, that's half way there.
- pharmakom 3y ago
  Weird definition of intelligence.
  - swatcoder 3y ago
    That's part of the irony. That's the definition being used in AI research. Does this system succeed on this test of {reasoning, theory of mind, abstract thinking, ... etc}? Can this system outperform most human workers? And yes, corporations and other collectives can fully satisfy both criteria for most economically valuable tasks. If you make the same degree of input/output adaptations for them that you do for LLM's, they'll write you articulate letters all day, perform inhuman computations and reasoning tasks, develop and execute grand strategy, control all your robots, ace all your tests, and then write all your code for a tenth of what it would cost with your Bay Area tech bro. From OpenAI's charter: > OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity.
upwardbound 3y ago
AI NotKillEveryoneism benefits everybody, even shareholders. ( This is the punny name that OpenAI employees use to refer to what's officially known as AI Existential Safety, explained here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38374739#38375199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38374739#38375199 )
BrenBarn 3y ago
I'd say the main issue is that governments have failed to put in place guardrails that penalize those who pursue monetary value over all else.

fungiblecog 3y ago

[flagged]

Terr_ 3y ago

> engineers have failed to communicate how picking the ethical options can create value for key stakeholders. Does the primary responsibility for that really fall on engineers in the first place? It just feels a little victim blame-y to me. Shouldn't most of the culpability fall on those stakeholders who don't want to be convinced because it means lower feature-velocity or less investor-profit?

Barrin92 3y ago
Primary? Debatable. But you do have responsibility for what you build, who you build it for and what and who you enable with your expertise. And engineers do have plenty of that, so they have plenty of reponsibility too.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  Oh, everyone has some contributory involvement, but I find it hard to imagine the same kind of standard being widely applied to other employee-experts in other industries. I mean, do we blame food chemists for "failing to convince stakeholders" that the candy-company should use ethically sourced fair-trade chocolate and less sugar? Or mechanical engineers for "failing to convince stakeholders" that the oil-company should avoid drilling in areas that are environmentally-sensitive or controlled by warlords of questionable legitimacy? No, we recognize that a laborer having specialized-skills doesn't automatically mean the corporate-machine is interested in their other opinions. (Unless they're visibly documenting problems that could someday harm the company in a potential lawsuit, in which case they tend to get laid off.)

smcleod 3y ago

This is a really good point that isn't raised nearly enough.

threeseed 3y ago

a) I don't think CEOs of multi-billion companies care about the opinions of engineers in general let alone the morality of ethics versus revenue. b) CEOs typically will do whatever it takes to maximise revenue, past the point of what is ethical/moral, up until they hit the limit of whether it's illegal. And then most but not all will stop. I'm hopeful but doubtful that AI will be any different.

fatherzine 3y ago

picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders. the metrics are misaligned. smart and wise people spent 2000 years seeking an workaround for this problem. there is none. there are only convoluted excuses.

justinclift 3y ago
> picking the ethical option will not create financial value for key stakeholders "The paperclip maximiser was great up until it turned the solar system into paperclips. Thankfully, a few of us were aware of the risk and escaped to a nearby solar system. It's not as nice as the first one, but it'll do. Now, who wants to buy some paperclips? :)"
nitwit005 3y ago
People are annoyed that you're correct. If picking the ethical choice maximized corporate profits, the Earth would have become a utopia a hundreds of years ago.

nitwit005 3y ago

If they cared, they could sit down with the engineers and make sure they understand, or have one of their underlings do that and make a summary for them. They generally don't care about the opinions of engineers that much, except to estimate the cost and practicality of different ideas.

swatcoder 3y ago

Yes, the irony is that corporations (and all other collectives) already represent AGI in that they can pass all the same tests and assume all the same roles as any human, when given the same kind of accomodations we give to these technological systems. And we've already let those AGI align themselves predominantly on "profit" In their worry about a new AGI that they may never actually discover, the apocolypts are being stymied by the one that's already there and that's already working to take over the world.

trees101 3y ago
this is a perceptive comment. There's a lot of conversation around this, one term used is "Egregore" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ2h7FYLTwg&t=8m30s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ2h7FYLTwg&t=8m30s https://youtu.be/FY4Fil_nB_c?t=4592 https://youtu.be/FY4Fil_nB_c?t=4592
- wddkcs 3y ago
  I wonder how long before we're hearing about egregores in common parlance. Corporations are already acknowledged as having freedom of speech in America, that's half way there.
pharmakom 3y ago
Weird definition of intelligence.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  That's part of the irony. That's the definition being used in AI research. Does this system succeed on this test of {reasoning, theory of mind, abstract thinking, ... etc}? Can this system outperform most human workers? And yes, corporations and other collectives can fully satisfy both criteria for most economically valuable tasks. If you make the same degree of input/output adaptations for them that you do for LLM's, they'll write you articulate letters all day, perform inhuman computations and reasoning tasks, develop and execute grand strategy, control all your robots, ace all your tests, and then write all your code for a tenth of what it would cost with your Bay Area tech bro. From OpenAI's charter: > OpenAI’s mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence (AGI)—by which we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work—benefits all of humanity.

upwardbound 3y ago

AI NotKillEveryoneism benefits everybody, even shareholders. ( This is the punny name that OpenAI employees use to refer to what's officially known as AI Existential Safety, explained here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38374739#38375199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38374739#38375199 )

BrenBarn 3y ago

I'd say the main issue is that governments have failed to put in place guardrails that penalize those who pursue monetary value over all else.