4 ms·

I think it's better to ignore OpenAI here, because OpenAI didn't do anything. Academic research is a professional field in the traditional sense. Individual re

I think it's better to ignore OpenAI here, because OpenAI didn't do anything. Academic research is a professional field in the traditional sense. Individual researchers are ultimately responsible for their actions. If some OpenAI employees violated academic norms while doing academic research, they should be judged by academic standards. Scooping someone else's result is immoral but not an outright violation of academic norms. But if you are in possession of relevant confidential information, you are expected to steer clear of the topic. It doesn't matter whether you actually used the confidential information to get your results, because outsiders can't know that. The mere fact that there is a plausible suspicion already puts your integrity into question. Tenured professors occasionally lose their jobs over similar scandals (but usually don't). If OpenAI wants to regain some goodwill, it should do a thorough investigation that may lead to firing the individuals in question. If it doesn't find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to justify any disciplinary action, it probably doesn't gain any goodwill either (as it often happens with similar investigations at universities). And if OpenAI wants to be a trustworthy partner, it should transform into a company of boring gray bureaucrats who provide an essential service without competing with their customers.

cj 16d ago
[deleted - misunderstood!]
- jltsiren 16d ago
  My point was that if someone is at fault, it's the individual OpenAI employees. Because they chose to engage in a professional field, they can't use "boss told me to do so" as a defense.
  - gregw2 15d ago
    Err, no. If someone is at fault, it is definitely the company (OpenAI) not the employee in this case. Just think, isn't the whole point of a company, of incorporating, is that the liability shifts from the employee to the firm? It is 100% fair to hold the company responsible, and doubly so when the questionable thing the employee is doing is something that A) benefits the company, and B) is on company time (aand with company resources.) I know you weren't making a legal-minutia point but even the high level principles involved are and should be the opposite of what you suggest. Companies may want to have their cake and eat it too (have employees do their dirty work but then push the blame on the employee) but that's not how it works and it's generally not a society you'd want to live in the more we head in that direction.
    - jltsiren 15d ago
      That's the difference between a profession and a job. If you work in a professional field, other people in the field will judge you by the standards of the profession. Academic research is structured around people working under their own name and taking personal responsibility. Most people are employed, but employers are not directly involved in the research. Some people have more traditional jobs, but others will still judge them by the norms of the field. You can't use administrative loopholes to escape moral responsibility. Employees can't have their cake and eat it too either. If you claim credit, you claim responsibility. If you claim that your employer is responsible, you claim that you had a supporting role and that you didn't make any intellectual contributions towards the result.

cj 16d ago

[deleted - misunderstood!]

jltsiren 16d ago
My point was that if someone is at fault, it's the individual OpenAI employees. Because they chose to engage in a professional field, they can't use "boss told me to do so" as a defense.
- gregw2 15d ago
  Err, no. If someone is at fault, it is definitely the company (OpenAI) not the employee in this case. Just think, isn't the whole point of a company, of incorporating, is that the liability shifts from the employee to the firm? It is 100% fair to hold the company responsible, and doubly so when the questionable thing the employee is doing is something that A) benefits the company, and B) is on company time (aand with company resources.) I know you weren't making a legal-minutia point but even the high level principles involved are and should be the opposite of what you suggest. Companies may want to have their cake and eat it too (have employees do their dirty work but then push the blame on the employee) but that's not how it works and it's generally not a society you'd want to live in the more we head in that direction.
  - jltsiren 15d ago
    That's the difference between a profession and a job. If you work in a professional field, other people in the field will judge you by the standards of the profession. Academic research is structured around people working under their own name and taking personal responsibility. Most people are employed, but employers are not directly involved in the research. Some people have more traditional jobs, but others will still judge them by the norms of the field. You can't use administrative loopholes to escape moral responsibility. Employees can't have their cake and eat it too either. If you claim credit, you claim responsibility. If you claim that your employer is responsible, you claim that you had a supporting role and that you didn't make any intellectual contributions towards the result.