5 ms·

I get the moral argument and even agree with it but we are a minority and of course we expect to be able sell our professional skills -- but if you are 'right'

I get the moral argument and even agree with it but we are a minority and of course we expect to be able sell our professional skills -- but if you are 'right' and out of business nobody will know. Is that any better than 'wrong' and still in business? You might as well work on product marketing for ai because that is where the client dollars are allocated. If it's hype at least you stayed afloat. If it's not maybe u find a new angle if you can survive long enough? Just survive and wait for things to shake out.

trial3 10mo ago
> but if you are 'right' and out of business nobody will know. Is that any better than 'wrong' and still in business? yes [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon
- anonymars 10mo ago
  Can you... elaborate?
  - jfindper 10mo ago
    Not the parent. I believe that they are bringing up a moral argument. Which I'm sympathetic too, having quit a job before because I found that my personal morals didn't align with the company, and the cognitive dissonance to continue working there was weighing heavily on me. The money wasn't worth the mental fight every day. So, yes, in some cases it is better to be "right" and be forced out of business than "wrong" and remain in business. But you have to look beyond just revenue numbers. And different people will have different ideas of "right" and "wrong", obviously.
    - arthurfirst 10mo ago
      Moral arguments are a luxury of thinkers and only a small percentage of people can be reasoned with that way anyways. You can manipulate on morals but not reason in most cases. Agreed that you cannot be in a toxic situation and not have it affect you -- so if THAT is the case -- by all means exit asap. If it's perceived ethical conflict the only one you need to worry about is the golden rule -- and I do not mean 'he who has the gold makes the rules' I mean the real one. If that conflicts with what you are doing then also probably make an exit -- but many do not care trust me... They would take everything from you and feel justified as long as they are told (just told) it's the right thing. They never ask themselves. They do not really think for themselves. This is most people. Sadly.
    - anonymars 10mo ago
      But the parent didn't really argue anything, they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon. Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"? Have they done more harm than, say, Meta?
      - jfindper 10mo ago
        >they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon Yeah, that's why I took a guess at what they were trying to say. >Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"? What? The fact that they linked to Wikipedia, or specifically Raytheon? Wikipedia does not intrinsically represent immorality, no. But missile manufacturing is a pretty typical example, if not the typical example, of a job that conflicts with morals. >Have they done more harm than, say, Meta? Who? Raytheon? The point I'm making has nothing to do with who sucks more between Meta and Raytheon.
        anonymars 10mo ago
        Well, sure, I'm not disagreeing with the original point about moral choice, and in fact I agree with it (though I also think that's a luxury, as someone else pointed out). But if someone wants to make some blanket judgement, I am asking for a little more effort. For example, I wonder if they would think the same as a Ukrainian under the protection of Patriot missiles? (also produced by Raytheon)
      - buildsjets 10mo ago
        Here are Raytheon part markings on the tail kit of a GBU-12 Paveway glide bomb that Raytheon sold to a corrupt third word dictator, who used that weapon to murder the attendees of an innocent wedding in a country he was feuding with. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/middle-east/2018/04/27/american-made-bomb-used-airstrike-yemen-wedding/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/middle-east/2018/04/27/ameri... I know the part number of every airplane part I have ever designed by heart, and I would be horrified to see those part numbers in the news as evidence of a mass murder. So, what is your moral justification for defending one of the world’s largest and despised weapons manufacturers? Are you paid to do it or is it just pro-bono work?
  - trial3 10mo ago
    yes [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No
order-matters 10mo ago
Yes, actually - being right and out of business is much better than being wrong and in business when it comes to ethics and morals. I am sure you could find a lot of moral values you would simply refuse to compromise on for the sake of business. the line between moral value and heavy preference, however, is blurry - and is probably where most people have AI placed on the moral spectrum right now. Being out of business shouldn't be a death sentence, and if it is then maybe we are overlooking something more significant. I am in a different camp altogether on AI, though, and would happily continue to do business with it. I genuinely do not see the difference between it and the computer in general. I could even argue it's the same as the printing press. What exactly is the moral dilemma with AI? We are all reading this message on devices built off of far more ethically questionable operations. that's not to say two things cant both be bad, but it just looks to me like people are using the moral argument as a means to avoid learning something new while being able to virtue signal how ethical they are about it, while at the same time they refuse to sacrifice things they are already accustomed to for ethical reasons when they learn more about it. It just all seems rather convenient. the main issue I see talked about with it is in unethical model training, but let me know of others. Personally, I think you can separate the process from the product. A product isnt unethical just because unethical processes were used to create it. The creator/perpetrator of the unethical process should be held accountable and all benefits taken back as to kill any perceived incentive to perform the actions, but once the damage is done why let it happen in vain? For example, should we let people die rather than use medical knowledge gained unethically? Maybe we should be targeting these AI companies if they are unethical and stop them from training any new models using the same unethical practices, hold them accountable for their actions, and distribute the intellectual property and profits gained from existing models to the public, but models that are already trained can actually be used for good and I personally see it as unethical not to. Sorry for the ramble, but it is a very interesting topic that should probably have as much discussion around it as we can get
- arthurfirst 10mo ago
  > Yes, actually - being right and out of business is much better than being wrong and in business when it comes to ethics and morals. Yes, but since you are out of business you no longer have an opportunity to fix that situation or adapt it to your morals. It's final. Turning the page is a valid choice though. Sometimes a clean slate is what you need. > Being out of business shouldn't be a death sentence, and if it is then maybe we are overlooking something more significant. Fair point! It feels like a death sentence when you put so much into it though -- a part of you IS dying. It's a natural reflex to revolt at the thought. > For example, should we let people die rather than use medical knowledge gained unethically? Depends if you are doing it 'for their own good' or not. Also the ends do not justify the means in the world of morals we are discussing -- that is pragmatism / utilitarianism and belongs to the world of the material not the ideal. Finally - Who determines what is ethical? beyond the 'golden rule'? This is the most important factor. I'm not implying ethics are ALL relative, but beyond the basics they are, and who determines that is more important than the context or the particulars.
johnnyanmac 10mo ago
>but if you are 'right' and out of business nobody will know. Is that any better than 'wrong' and still in business? Depends. Is it better to be "wrong" and burn all your goodwill for any future endeavors? Maybe, but I don't think the answer is clear cut for everyone. I also don't fully agree with us being the "minority". The issue is that the majority of investors are simply not investing anymore. Those remaining are playing high stakes roulette until the casino burns down.

trial3 10mo ago

> but if you are 'right' and out of business nobody will know. Is that any better than 'wrong' and still in business? yes [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon

anonymars 10mo ago
Can you... elaborate?
- jfindper 10mo ago
  Not the parent. I believe that they are bringing up a moral argument. Which I'm sympathetic too, having quit a job before because I found that my personal morals didn't align with the company, and the cognitive dissonance to continue working there was weighing heavily on me. The money wasn't worth the mental fight every day. So, yes, in some cases it is better to be "right" and be forced out of business than "wrong" and remain in business. But you have to look beyond just revenue numbers. And different people will have different ideas of "right" and "wrong", obviously.
  - arthurfirst 10mo ago
    Moral arguments are a luxury of thinkers and only a small percentage of people can be reasoned with that way anyways. You can manipulate on morals but not reason in most cases. Agreed that you cannot be in a toxic situation and not have it affect you -- so if THAT is the case -- by all means exit asap. If it's perceived ethical conflict the only one you need to worry about is the golden rule -- and I do not mean 'he who has the gold makes the rules' I mean the real one. If that conflicts with what you are doing then also probably make an exit -- but many do not care trust me... They would take everything from you and feel justified as long as they are told (just told) it's the right thing. They never ask themselves. They do not really think for themselves. This is most people. Sadly.
  - anonymars 10mo ago
    But the parent didn't really argue anything, they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon. Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"? Have they done more harm than, say, Meta?
    - jfindper 10mo ago
      >they just linked to a Wikipedia article about Raytheon Yeah, that's why I took a guess at what they were trying to say. >Is that supposed to intrinsically represent "immorality"? What? The fact that they linked to Wikipedia, or specifically Raytheon? Wikipedia does not intrinsically represent immorality, no. But missile manufacturing is a pretty typical example, if not the typical example, of a job that conflicts with morals. >Have they done more harm than, say, Meta? Who? Raytheon? The point I'm making has nothing to do with who sucks more between Meta and Raytheon.
      - anonymars 10mo ago
        Well, sure, I'm not disagreeing with the original point about moral choice, and in fact I agree with it (though I also think that's a luxury, as someone else pointed out). But if someone wants to make some blanket judgement, I am asking for a little more effort. For example, I wonder if they would think the same as a Ukrainian under the protection of Patriot missiles? (also produced by Raytheon)
    - buildsjets 10mo ago
      Here are Raytheon part markings on the tail kit of a GBU-12 Paveway glide bomb that Raytheon sold to a corrupt third word dictator, who used that weapon to murder the attendees of an innocent wedding in a country he was feuding with. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/middle-east/2018/04/27/american-made-bomb-used-airstrike-yemen-wedding/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/middle-east/2018/04/27/ameri... I know the part number of every airplane part I have ever designed by heart, and I would be horrified to see those part numbers in the news as evidence of a mass murder. So, what is your moral justification for defending one of the world’s largest and despised weapons manufacturers? Are you paid to do it or is it just pro-bono work?
- trial3 10mo ago
  yes [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No

order-matters 10mo ago

Yes, actually - being right and out of business is much better than being wrong and in business when it comes to ethics and morals. I am sure you could find a lot of moral values you would simply refuse to compromise on for the sake of business. the line between moral value and heavy preference, however, is blurry - and is probably where most people have AI placed on the moral spectrum right now. Being out of business shouldn't be a death sentence, and if it is then maybe we are overlooking something more significant. I am in a different camp altogether on AI, though, and would happily continue to do business with it. I genuinely do not see the difference between it and the computer in general. I could even argue it's the same as the printing press. What exactly is the moral dilemma with AI? We are all reading this message on devices built off of far more ethically questionable operations. that's not to say two things cant both be bad, but it just looks to me like people are using the moral argument as a means to avoid learning something new while being able to virtue signal how ethical they are about it, while at the same time they refuse to sacrifice things they are already accustomed to for ethical reasons when they learn more about it. It just all seems rather convenient. the main issue I see talked about with it is in unethical model training, but let me know of others. Personally, I think you can separate the process from the product. A product isnt unethical just because unethical processes were used to create it. The creator/perpetrator of the unethical process should be held accountable and all benefits taken back as to kill any perceived incentive to perform the actions, but once the damage is done why let it happen in vain? For example, should we let people die rather than use medical knowledge gained unethically? Maybe we should be targeting these AI companies if they are unethical and stop them from training any new models using the same unethical practices, hold them accountable for their actions, and distribute the intellectual property and profits gained from existing models to the public, but models that are already trained can actually be used for good and I personally see it as unethical not to. Sorry for the ramble, but it is a very interesting topic that should probably have as much discussion around it as we can get

arthurfirst 10mo ago
> Yes, actually - being right and out of business is much better than being wrong and in business when it comes to ethics and morals. Yes, but since you are out of business you no longer have an opportunity to fix that situation or adapt it to your morals. It's final. Turning the page is a valid choice though. Sometimes a clean slate is what you need. > Being out of business shouldn't be a death sentence, and if it is then maybe we are overlooking something more significant. Fair point! It feels like a death sentence when you put so much into it though -- a part of you IS dying. It's a natural reflex to revolt at the thought. > For example, should we let people die rather than use medical knowledge gained unethically? Depends if you are doing it 'for their own good' or not. Also the ends do not justify the means in the world of morals we are discussing -- that is pragmatism / utilitarianism and belongs to the world of the material not the ideal. Finally - Who determines what is ethical? beyond the 'golden rule'? This is the most important factor. I'm not implying ethics are ALL relative, but beyond the basics they are, and who determines that is more important than the context or the particulars.

johnnyanmac 10mo ago

>but if you are 'right' and out of business nobody will know. Is that any better than 'wrong' and still in business? Depends. Is it better to be "wrong" and burn all your goodwill for any future endeavors? Maybe, but I don't think the answer is clear cut for everyone. I also don't fully agree with us being the "minority". The issue is that the majority of investors are simply not investing anymore. Those remaining are playing high stakes roulette until the casino burns down.