6 ms·

The macro point is that complex systems are complex and have competing priorities, so it’s facile to say “I don’t agree with the decision, therefore any reasoni

by brookst 2mo ago

The macro point is that complex systems are complex and have competing priorities, so it’s facile to say “I don’t agree with the decision, therefore any reasoning that supported the decision must be 100% intentional malicious bullshit.” I’m old, I’ve had a varied career, I’ve been in small group meetings in startups and VCs and megacorps. I have never once heard the kind of “obviously this is an evil decision, but here’s how we’ll spin it” conspiracy that people so enjoy imagining. It just doesn’t work that way.

xg15 2mo ago
I mean, we have evidence of things that have been said e.g. in Facebook's board meetings. So those things do exist.
- saalweachter 2mo ago
  Facebook is also kind of an outlier IMO. There will be a scandal where Facebook is caught doing something, and then you get a bunch of people talking about "tech companies", or "Facebook and Google", and then you read the details ... and it was Facebook, with everyone going "well, the rest probably are too".
  - j-bos 2mo ago
    Outlier in candor.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
bananabiscuit 2mo ago
In every company I have worked so far, for the very large majority of decisions I've seen everyone try to act very ethically and morally. However, every once in a while, a temptation to make a greedy decision comes up, and what I see during the discussions of these kinds of decisions, where everyone already knows they want to make the choice that would be harmful to the customer, is that the usual detailed discussion of pros and cons that normally happens is reduced, and everyone implicitly somehow knows to focus on only talking about just the pros, both for the company and the customer. Sometimes cons for the company are mentioned, and it feels very performative, as if just to give the appearance of balance. At times when I or some other individual speaks up about the obvious harm to the customer, usually ignorance is feigned, people pretend not to understand the harm, or they counter with all the "pro-customer" points that have already been said so far. It's never an overt thing like how you portrayed it, but it happens every single time when the perceived payoff is too enticing to pass up.
- cobzilla 2mo ago
  There are a few other paths to these types of decisions that also don’t require overt malice. The most prevalent, almost universal, is that macro strategy is set without consideration of what it really takes to accomplish the goals. So the discussions are framed by resource constraints and decisions are rationalized by those constraints. Likewise, group discussions at high levels are almost always abstracted into corporate-speak that removes clarity to the point where nobody can even decipher the original intent. Honestly, even when thinking about decisions or talking 1 on 1, it’s easy to mask real consequences with obtuse language. It’s a coping mechanism for many. It’s been extremely rare that I’ve ever heard anyone say anything that could be directly considered condoning unethical behavior. Establishing plausible deniability is an involuntary reflex for lots of people. Generally the decisions made on the ground that seem like greed or malice are more often made as part of some survival strategy. It’s all quite messy and disheartening, but inevitably human.
DangitBobby 2mo ago
People lie. It's what they do. It's childish to assume decisions that magically align with their interests specifically to the detriment of everyone else aren't actually motivated by their interests.
AngryData 2mo ago
People rarely state out loud their nefarious intents when they can easily try and justify it under a completely different framing. Most people aren't dumb enough to state out loud their intent to do what the majority of people find abhorrent even if it is exactly what they intent to do.
- brookst 2mo ago
  I mean if your argument rests on reading the minds of people you haven’t even met, I’m not super convinced.
  - AngryData 2mo ago
    You don't have to read minds, just look at what corporations actually do in the real world. It doesn't matter if the people in the company spend 90% of their time talking or thinking about doing good things if the remaining 10% of shitty things end up being implemented far more often. Defusing the responsibility of decisions away from individuals, both psychologically and legally, enables large companies to do shitty things in the name of profit.
budman1 2mo ago
I think every company does what they think will make the execs the most money. Look at how many companies complied with the 'trump shakedown'. Ethics are great, until it messes with the bottom line. It only takes a little thought to come up with a reason why it is really 'the right thing to do, for the customers'. (customers need a good AI. so, in order to support that need, we are going to re-align our staffing to free up some cash. For the customers, of course)

by brookst 2mo ago

xg15 2mo ago

I mean, we have evidence of things that have been said e.g. in Facebook's board meetings. So those things do exist.

saalweachter 2mo ago
Facebook is also kind of an outlier IMO. There will be a scandal where Facebook is caught doing something, and then you get a bunch of people talking about "tech companies", or "Facebook and Google", and then you read the details ... and it was Facebook, with everyone going "well, the rest probably are too".
- j-bos 2mo ago
  Outlier in candor.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]

bananabiscuit 2mo ago

In every company I have worked so far, for the very large majority of decisions I've seen everyone try to act very ethically and morally. However, every once in a while, a temptation to make a greedy decision comes up, and what I see during the discussions of these kinds of decisions, where everyone already knows they want to make the choice that would be harmful to the customer, is that the usual detailed discussion of pros and cons that normally happens is reduced, and everyone implicitly somehow knows to focus on only talking about just the pros, both for the company and the customer. Sometimes cons for the company are mentioned, and it feels very performative, as if just to give the appearance of balance. At times when I or some other individual speaks up about the obvious harm to the customer, usually ignorance is feigned, people pretend not to understand the harm, or they counter with all the "pro-customer" points that have already been said so far. It's never an overt thing like how you portrayed it, but it happens every single time when the perceived payoff is too enticing to pass up.

cobzilla 2mo ago
There are a few other paths to these types of decisions that also don’t require overt malice. The most prevalent, almost universal, is that macro strategy is set without consideration of what it really takes to accomplish the goals. So the discussions are framed by resource constraints and decisions are rationalized by those constraints. Likewise, group discussions at high levels are almost always abstracted into corporate-speak that removes clarity to the point where nobody can even decipher the original intent. Honestly, even when thinking about decisions or talking 1 on 1, it’s easy to mask real consequences with obtuse language. It’s a coping mechanism for many. It’s been extremely rare that I’ve ever heard anyone say anything that could be directly considered condoning unethical behavior. Establishing plausible deniability is an involuntary reflex for lots of people. Generally the decisions made on the ground that seem like greed or malice are more often made as part of some survival strategy. It’s all quite messy and disheartening, but inevitably human.

DangitBobby 2mo ago

People lie. It's what they do. It's childish to assume decisions that magically align with their interests specifically to the detriment of everyone else aren't actually motivated by their interests.

AngryData 2mo ago

People rarely state out loud their nefarious intents when they can easily try and justify it under a completely different framing. Most people aren't dumb enough to state out loud their intent to do what the majority of people find abhorrent even if it is exactly what they intent to do.

brookst 2mo ago
I mean if your argument rests on reading the minds of people you haven’t even met, I’m not super convinced.
- AngryData 2mo ago
  You don't have to read minds, just look at what corporations actually do in the real world. It doesn't matter if the people in the company spend 90% of their time talking or thinking about doing good things if the remaining 10% of shitty things end up being implemented far more often. Defusing the responsibility of decisions away from individuals, both psychologically and legally, enables large companies to do shitty things in the name of profit.

budman1 2mo ago

I think every company does what they think will make the execs the most money. Look at how many companies complied with the 'trump shakedown'. Ethics are great, until it messes with the bottom line. It only takes a little thought to come up with a reason why it is really 'the right thing to do, for the customers'. (customers need a good AI. so, in order to support that need, we are going to re-align our staffing to free up some cash. For the customers, of course)