Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
unknownfuture | on: OpenAI’s head of ethics leaves less than a year after joining
I'd argue folks in ethics roles shouldn't be responsible for actually creating the systems, processes, and practices required to put those concepts into practice. That's what engineering, product, and people leadership are for.

AI ethics is first and foremost about setting policy and advising on how those systems should be constructed.

This is because ethics isn't some separable function. It threads through everything an organization does. You can't just treat it as another department/function/unit if you want any hope of actually making it work.

madrox | parent | next
I am not in the AI ethics field, but I've watched multiple tech-adjacent disciplines that say "that's what engineering and product are for" get subsumed by engineering and product, who don't really care for a group that sees themselves above implementation. Based on history alone, that's what I expect to happen whether you agree with that or not, and I suspect this tension is driving at least part of the role of AI ethics at companies trying to turn profit.
unknownfuture | root | parent
I agree.

Specifically because in these companies they aren't optimizing for ethical behaviour.

They're optimizing for profit. And those damn ethicists just get in the way.

Funny thing: that doesn't typically happen to the internal legal counsel or accounting that's responsible for guiding processes/practices that are required for compliance or similar.

Why?

Because there's consequences.

madrox | root | parent
I don’t find that funny at all. AI didn’t invent the problem of balancing profit motives with ethical guard rails.

I wouldn’t be surprised if many AI ethics responsibilities move to legal in the future.

skinfaxi | parent | next
Haven't we seen from history that handing down policy from your ivory tower is a disservice to all involved? Or do we think out of touch politicians accurately represent the interests if their constituents?

Another example you might be familiar with is enterprise architects. When you spend all of your time in theory you lose sight of practical implications. Of course, since you only had the idea, when it doesn't go to your ideal it can always be blamed on the implementers.

unknownfuture | root | parent
> Haven't we seen from history that handing down policy from your ivory tower is a disservice to all involved?

I take it you've never worked with an in-house legal counsel, accounting department, or good ol' fashioned HR?

skinfaxi | root | parent
I have but at least for the technical domains I have overseen, policy was not dictated by legal by cocreated based on my input, except in cases where we were bound by law specifically (eg reporting timelines to gov agencies).

HR is a bit different and strange to bring up, especially considering I used enterprise architect as an example. AI safety would presumably be not cross-cutting for all domains at a company (does the janitorial staff need to know about it? no but they do need sexual harassment training), but be more like the enterprise architects designing in the sky and handing it down for implementation.

unknownfuture | root | parent
> policy was not dictated by legal by cocreated based on my input,

Yes but ultimately legal isn't putting policy into practice, which is my point.

> HR is a bit different and strange to bring up, especially considering I used enterprise architect as an example. AI safety would presumably be not cross-cutting for all domains at a company

Frankly, you're nitpicking the analogy while missing the broader point it's serving to make.

loading story #49285549
EagnaIonat | parent
> I'd argue folks in ethics roles shouldn't be responsible for actually creating the systems, processes, and practices required to put those concepts into practice. That's what engineering, product, and people leadership are for.

I agree with you, but then we have HR for a reason.