4 ms·

We have a pretty famous example, someone who's actions actually led to change: Edward Snowden. He didn't quit prematurely, crying to whoever would listen that h

We have a pretty famous example, someone who's actions actually led to change: Edward Snowden. He didn't quit prematurely, crying to whoever would listen that he thought the US had a massive ongoing surveillance program. He actually stayed in the system which he was growing suspicious of, until he actually had proof of shenanigans and then he got as much of that proof as he could out before leaving. Currently what we have with these people publicly quitting because "immoral things are happening" at AI labs are essentially crying wolf, and if/when something really worth taking action on does come up, it's pretty likely that many will be too jaded to care and as such there will be no/too little action.

hegelstoleit 1mo ago
He did that because what they were doing was illegal and there was a whistle blower program he could use to confront the issue, legally. That doesn't apply here. Not clear what you're suggesting he does differently.
- skeledrew 1mo ago
  Some of it was illegal. Most of it was permissible or grey zoned. There was no whistleblower program he could've used that would've led to anything more than sources getting shut down and the matter getting swept under a carpet. Nothing allowed for public disclosure, and without that there'd be little to no change. And no, it doesn't apply here because this is just someone crying wolf; there is no evidence that they can bring forth to support their claim of danger because they vacated a position that could've allowed them access to that evidence if there were to be any.
  - hegelstoleit 1mo ago
    Okay, so your argument is that he should disclose trade secrets/confidential information and face both civil and criminal litigation and ruin his life like Edward Snowden? Before your argument was that it doesn't matter if he quits because someone else will just replace his job. This doesn't seem like a reasonable sacrifice to demand of someone, especially given the prior argument. The original point I was making is that the fact that someone else will take the job is not a reason to keep doing that job which you view as immoral. I guess he could go full whistleblower, but I don't really feel like that's a fair standard to have of people - that takes a lot of courage and is usually quite rare. I think it's fully legitimate to quit a job you disagree with on moral grounds. I can understand that people don't want to risk being sued by a rich and powerful corporation for leaking confidential information to the public, so bringing evidence to light can be hard to do. I can also understand criticizing him for this, but I don't think most people would even forgo the paycheck in the first place for their morals, so the bar is pretty low for me.

hegelstoleit 1mo ago

He did that because what they were doing was illegal and there was a whistle blower program he could use to confront the issue, legally. That doesn't apply here. Not clear what you're suggesting he does differently.

skeledrew 1mo ago
Some of it was illegal. Most of it was permissible or grey zoned. There was no whistleblower program he could've used that would've led to anything more than sources getting shut down and the matter getting swept under a carpet. Nothing allowed for public disclosure, and without that there'd be little to no change. And no, it doesn't apply here because this is just someone crying wolf; there is no evidence that they can bring forth to support their claim of danger because they vacated a position that could've allowed them access to that evidence if there were to be any.
- hegelstoleit 1mo ago
  Okay, so your argument is that he should disclose trade secrets/confidential information and face both civil and criminal litigation and ruin his life like Edward Snowden? Before your argument was that it doesn't matter if he quits because someone else will just replace his job. This doesn't seem like a reasonable sacrifice to demand of someone, especially given the prior argument. The original point I was making is that the fact that someone else will take the job is not a reason to keep doing that job which you view as immoral. I guess he could go full whistleblower, but I don't really feel like that's a fair standard to have of people - that takes a lot of courage and is usually quite rare. I think it's fully legitimate to quit a job you disagree with on moral grounds. I can understand that people don't want to risk being sued by a rich and powerful corporation for leaking confidential information to the public, so bringing evidence to light can be hard to do. I can also understand criticizing him for this, but I don't think most people would even forgo the paycheck in the first place for their morals, so the bar is pretty low for me.