5 ms·
If the two parties are equal, sure. If it's a person vs a corporation of significant size, then no, it's not safe to assume that people have free choice. That's
by ghusbands 2y ago
If the two parties are equal, sure. If it's a person vs a corporation of significant size, then no, it's not safe to assume that people have free choice. That's also ignoring motivations apart from business ones, like them actually wanting to be at the leading edge of AI research or wanting to work with particular other individuals.
It's a common mistake on here to assume that for every decision there are equally good other options. Also, the fact that they feel the need to enforce silence so strongly implies at least a little that they have something to hide.
- hanspeter 2y agoAI researchers and engineers surely have the free choice to sign with another employer than OpenAI?
- jstummbillig 2y ago> If it's a person vs a corporation of significant size, then no, it's not safe to assume that people have free choice We understand this as a market dynamic, surely? More companies are looking for capable AI people, than capable AI people exist (as in: on the entire planet). I don't see any magic trick a "corporation of significant size" can pull, to make the "free choice" aspect go away. But, of course, individual people can continue to CHOOSE certain corps, because they actually kind of like the outsized benefits that brings. Complaining about certain trade-offs afterwards is fairly disingenuous. > That's also ignoring motivations apart from business ones, like them actually wanting to be at the leading edge of AI research or wanting to work with particular other individuals. I don't understand what you are saying. Is the wish to work on leading AI research sensible, but offering the opportunity to work on leading AI research not a value proposition? How does that make sense?