4 ms·
If this were true, food companies wouldn’t have a Regulatory team. Except every single one of them does, and they function similarly to how you describe, but wi
by plaidfuji 2mo ago
If this were true, food companies wouldn’t have a Regulatory team. Except every single one of them does, and they function similarly to how you describe, but without dissolving. They’re treated as a constraint that must be checked before major projects can advance. Sometimes they’re the longest-lead item on a new project and if you don’t get them involved early, your project can sink at a late stage after great expense.
The only difference is AI isn’t regulated, so they just have a vague “ethics” department with no real teeth because it’s essentially PR and has no legal consequences to back up their stance.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- mrits 2mo agoFood companies produce literal poison. Not a great example
- jkahrs595 2mo ago> The only difference is AI isn’t regulated Seems extremely obvious that this is exactly why the food industry doesn’t dissolve its regulatory team?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- k2xl 2mo agoI don't think that's a fair comparison. Regulatory teams exist to make sure companies comply with actual laws and regulations. There's a relatively objective standard they're enforcing. Big tech has the same thing in its legal and compliance teams, and those teams absolutely can kill projects. That's pretty different from an amorphous "ethics" committee deciding what is or isn't ethical based on much more subjective criteria.
- staticman2 2mo ago> The only difference is AI isn’t regulated You seem to believe that regulation is "ethics backed by law". As this is not true, your counter example is not even on point.
- red-iron-pine 2mo agoethics isn't regulation. regulation is external, forced upon them, and has direct usually 1-to-1 consequences if you don't comply. ethics may feed into regulation, hopefully, but the regs may just as easily give the orgs they regulate a pass on things they shouldn't; e.g. "regulatory capture".
- SkyPuncher 2mo agoI don’t view that team as saying “No”. Instead, I view that team as saying “Customers expect safe food. Our job is to help you deliver on that”.
- plaidfuji 2mo agoThat means they’ve learned how to say “no” more diplomatically :)
- SkyPuncher 2mo agoIn this case, I actually view it differently than just a diplomatic position. Ideally, these teams have processes and standards that they use to enable other teams. If someone says “I have this cool new food product”, regulatory teams say “Amazing, here’s how we can help bring that to market.”
- hbn 2mo agoFood companies aren't rapidly developing groundbreaking new technologies on the most competitive battleground in computing history where everyone is trying to compete globally just to create the foundational infrastructure. It's not that hard to get some pickled eggs on a grocery store shelf while remaining compliant with expected ethical standards for the industry. Food is a pretty mature industry.
- Arkhaine_kupo 2mo ago> rapidly developing if the speed comes at the cost of not making reasonable ethical considerations, is that not something that should be looked at?
- MetroWind 2mo agoOf course it is. Doesn't mean the stakeholders are willing.
- pyuser583 2mo agoRegulatory teams are about external compliance. That’s different from “chief ethicist.” It’s a little unclear what this person was doing. But ensuring compliance with government regulations was probably not their core function.