4 ms·

No, I'm not talking about abdication of responsibility. I'm talking about modesty. It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. That we know

No, I'm not talking about abdication of responsibility. I'm talking about modesty. It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. That we know how a society should be governed, and we are able to label another country as totalitarian, or undemocratic, or illiberal, or such. But looking around the world, you can see that a lot of evil is perpetrated exactly by people who think they know better than everyone else. Osama bin Laden himself thought that what he was doing was for the advancement of good over evil, and a lot of his followers thought the same. A lot of the people reading Hacker News right now think they have a better solution for the societal problems of the UAE. I personally have no idea about what's going on over there. But let's say that I'm in charge of the business decisions at Open AI. Should I start thinking that I know a way to solve their problems, and part of that way is for my company to apply some form of AI embargo on them? Or should I simply know my limitations, and restrict my judgment to the matters I am familiar with. "Abdication of responsibility". What grand words. Why exactly has Open AI a responsibility to guide the UAE towards a better future? And, more importantly, why should Open AI feel confident that they know what is better for the UAE?

cyberax 1y ago
> Why exactly has Open AI a responsibility to guide the UAE towards a better future? OpenAI is not responsible for UAE government. However, it's responsible for its own actions, and for their easily predictable consequences.
ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
> I'm talking about modesty. And I am talking about not doing bad things, which includes helping others do bad things. > It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. Not really. Responsibility, principles, and morality are work. It's far more appealing to claim they are someone else's job, dispense with them, turn your brain off, and do whatever feels good. > A lot of the people reading Hacker News right now think they have a better solution for the societal problems of the UAE. With all due respect, the percentage of HackerNews readers who are thinking about the UAE right now can be counted on one hand. This discussion is about generalities: Don't help people do bad stuff. You're arguing about what's bad, and what isn't, and who decides. Interesting topic (perhaps for someone else or for another time)! Would you help someone do something which you think is bad?
- credit_guy 1y ago
  > Would you help someone do something which you think is bad? I wouldn’t. But this is not the question here. The question here is if I would give someone a powerful tool that can be used for good, for neutral or for bad things, if I believe that there is a good chance it will be used for bad things. That puts a lot of responsibility on me to get into the business of predicting bad behavior.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > That puts a lot of responsibility on me to get into the business of predicting bad behavior. Not a ton: you don't need to come up with a numerical probability, and erring on the side of caution is just fine. That said, I think that IS the question here. If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with.
    - credit_guy 1y ago
      > If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad, if only autocrats were not helped by us, they'll fall and they'll be replaced by democracy, and perhaps by crowds singing in unison Beetles' "Imagine". In reality, democracy is a very unlikely outcome of a dictator being toppled. The top 2 outcomes, by miles and miles, are 1. the dictator is replaced by another dictator and 2. the dictator is replaced by some weak pseudo-state like Somalia, Lebanon or Yemen. I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. As I said, I have no idea who is governing the UAE, but I know that it's much easier to criticize them than to come with a realistic better alternative.
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        > In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad Many other places, too. Obviously it's not a universal thing: every sufficiently large group of people has fans of autocracy. There has historically been evolutionary advantages to wanting a big, strong hand to control everything. Any alternative has not had sufficient time to evolutionarily propagate through humans. The rest of your post kind of veers off-topic, so remember we're talking about individual people's decision to not work on something based on their own judgements. I don't think it's worth arguing at them that their judgements are wrongly made. Again, If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. Nobody is trying to convince you personally to change your morals. So, as long as you don't try to change theirs, there is no need to be defensive. > I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. I think a good place to start with this, would be to be less confident that you know what's best for others who are deciding whether to empower autocrats. It's much easier to criticize them and their decision, than to come with a realistic, better alternative.
int_19h 1y ago
> should I simply know my limitations, and restrict my judgment to the matters I am familiar with Sure, but the course of action that best reflects this is to not get involved in such business at all (because you just admitted that you're incapable of judging its consequences).

cyberax 1y ago

> Why exactly has Open AI a responsibility to guide the UAE towards a better future? OpenAI is not responsible for UAE government. However, it's responsible for its own actions, and for their easily predictable consequences.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

> I'm talking about modesty. And I am talking about not doing bad things, which includes helping others do bad things. > It is very appealing to think you know better than other people. Not really. Responsibility, principles, and morality are work. It's far more appealing to claim they are someone else's job, dispense with them, turn your brain off, and do whatever feels good. > A lot of the people reading Hacker News right now think they have a better solution for the societal problems of the UAE. With all due respect, the percentage of HackerNews readers who are thinking about the UAE right now can be counted on one hand. This discussion is about generalities: Don't help people do bad stuff. You're arguing about what's bad, and what isn't, and who decides. Interesting topic (perhaps for someone else or for another time)! Would you help someone do something which you think is bad?

credit_guy 1y ago
> Would you help someone do something which you think is bad? I wouldn’t. But this is not the question here. The question here is if I would give someone a powerful tool that can be used for good, for neutral or for bad things, if I believe that there is a good chance it will be used for bad things. That puts a lot of responsibility on me to get into the business of predicting bad behavior.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > That puts a lot of responsibility on me to get into the business of predicting bad behavior. Not a ton: you don't need to come up with a numerical probability, and erring on the side of caution is just fine. That said, I think that IS the question here. If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with.
  - credit_guy 1y ago
    > If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad, if only autocrats were not helped by us, they'll fall and they'll be replaced by democracy, and perhaps by crowds singing in unison Beetles' "Imagine". In reality, democracy is a very unlikely outcome of a dictator being toppled. The top 2 outcomes, by miles and miles, are 1. the dictator is replaced by another dictator and 2. the dictator is replaced by some weak pseudo-state like Somalia, Lebanon or Yemen. I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. As I said, I have no idea who is governing the UAE, but I know that it's much easier to criticize them than to come with a realistic better alternative.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      > In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad Many other places, too. Obviously it's not a universal thing: every sufficiently large group of people has fans of autocracy. There has historically been evolutionary advantages to wanting a big, strong hand to control everything. Any alternative has not had sufficient time to evolutionarily propagate through humans. The rest of your post kind of veers off-topic, so remember we're talking about individual people's decision to not work on something based on their own judgements. I don't think it's worth arguing at them that their judgements are wrongly made. Again, If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. Nobody is trying to convince you personally to change your morals. So, as long as you don't try to change theirs, there is no need to be defensive. > I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. I think a good place to start with this, would be to be less confident that you know what's best for others who are deciding whether to empower autocrats. It's much easier to criticize them and their decision, than to come with a realistic, better alternative.

int_19h 1y ago

> should I simply know my limitations, and restrict my judgment to the matters I am familiar with Sure, but the course of action that best reflects this is to not get involved in such business at all (because you just admitted that you're incapable of judging its consequences).