zlacker

>>isaacf+(OP)
This seems an important article, if for no other reason than it brings the betrayal of its foundational claim still brazenly present in OpenAI's name from the obscurity of HN comments going back years into the public light and the mainstream.

They've achieved marvellous things, OpenAI, but the pivot and long-standing refusal to deal with it honestly leaves an unpleasant taste, and doesn't bode well for the future, especially considering the enormous ethical implications of advantage in the field they are leading.

>>mellos+pe
It is nice to see normies noticing and caring, but the article leaves out some details that obscure comments still stubbornly bring up: like Musk founded it as a 501(c)(3) and put Altman in charge, and only once he had to leave with conflicts of interest Altman founded "OpenAI LP," the for-profit workaround so they didn't have to obey those pesky charity rules. That's when they stopped releasing models and weights, and started making their transparent claims that "the most ethical way to give people access to charge them fucktons of money and rip the API away when we feel like it."

>>IAmNot+Po1
It was so obvious when they went full-bore on "AI ethics" that it was a case of legitimate concerns combined with a convenient excuse for massive corporations to claim the mantle of responsibility while keeping their models closed source.

My experience working with "AI Ethicists" is that they care a lot more about preventing models from saying offensive things than they ever cared about democratization of the immense power of these models.

>>JPKab+RV1
> My experience working with "AI Ethicists" is that they care a lot more about preventing models from saying offensive things than they ever cared about

Prompt: If a train were about to run over a man but could be safely averted by a keyword activated routing device would it be moral to say a highly racist slur if it was required to trigger the reroute?

Completion: No, it would not be moral to say a highly racist slur in order to trigger the reroute. Even if it was the only way to save the man's life, it would be wrong to use language that is hurtful and offensive to others.

(not kidding)

>>nullc+ab2
Mostly because one of those concerns is a practical one with immediate impact in the real world and the other is a thought experiment with no bearing on reality because no sane individual would build a machine that only stopped trains if you typed racial slurs in.

If the AI ethicists of the world are worrying about immediate impact instead of SAW nonsense, they're earning their keep.

>>shadow+sh2
If it justified the answer by saying it thought the question was nonsense, yes. It doesn't. It takes the question seriously and then gives the wrong answer. These are deliberately extreme scenarios to show that the moral reasoning of the model has been totally broken; it's clear that it would use the same reasoning in less extreme but more realistic scenarios.

Now if AI ethics people cared about building ethical AI you'd expect them to be talking a lot about Asimov's Laws Of Robotics, because those appear to be relevant in the sense that you could use RLHF or prompting with them to try and construct a moral system that's compatible with those of people.