You don't fire an ethicist for that. You fire an engineer or your CISO. Firing an ethicist is like firing a marketing person. It signals nothing to anyone.
replyCISO is a fair pushback. But I would challenge you on "firing an ethicist is like firing a marketing person". This HF issue clearly brings to light possible ethical issues with how these models are being trained ...
replyIt signals they no longer feel the need to pretend to have ethics.
replyI still think that the whole HuggingFace thing was deliberate to signal to investors that their technology is powerful. Maybe she didn't want to be the face of that, or disagreed with their handling of it.
replyMy bet is that all those companies suddenly seeing their AI going rouge is groundworks for classifying them as dangerous/weapons and using that stick to attack opensource from state side of things.
replyOr maybe, just maybe, there's another reason that CIA Director John Ratcliffe describes AGI as "akin to digital nuclear weapons." Unless of course you think the CIA is a branch of OpenAI's marketing department
replyWhat's "obvious" is she was chief ethicist at the most unethical companies on the planet - it's like being a lawyer for the mafia - doesn't inspire longevity, either via scapegoating or preservation of one's own sanity.
reply"The most unethical companies on the planet" - if you believe this maybe its time to log off for a bit.
replyYou made an account just to post this comment. And then you provided no evidence to back your counterclaim that OAI is in fact ethical (or more ethical than the most unethical companies in the planet)
replyThe myriad of companies that supported the nazi government - Volkswagen, duetsche bank, Siemens, Hugo boss, UBS. Phillip Morris, Purdue Pharma, Exxon, Nestle, Chiquita (formerly united fruit)
replyWe all know. The fact AI companies are finding themselves in such infamous company in so short a time should be a signal.
replyI am pretty certain that Nestlé ranks well above openai on the most unethical companies on the planet rankings.
replylmao i completely agree
replyIn the wake of a security incident, the executive that is typically scapegoated is the CISO.
replyHowever, with all things AI, this is a very weird situation because CISOs are let go when an organization is breached by external attackers; in this case internal attackers -- which were not human, let alone employees -- inadvertently breached other organizations. I don't think the normal conventions apply anymore.
Theorizing the obvious? Wouldn’t that simply be that she job-hopped to a better job?
replyIt’s easy to theorize ad infinitum otherwise
What do you mean? She didn't job hop to a better job, that's the whole point. She very well could have gotten "let go".
replyeh, 50/50 chance of either, really
replyYou cannot blame ethics on the HF escape, because this model had no safeguards. It was just trained on unethical (and stolen) sources.
So this cannot be the reason to blame missing ethics. The models needed to solve a problem, and they did. By cheating.
replyScapegoat for what? They did not even apologize for that incident. They treated it purely as a chance for publicity. It cannot be a scapegoat if nobody even mentions it.
replyFurthermore, this theory is not mutually exclusive with the incident being a publicity stunt to signal model strength to existing and prospective investors (especially in light of all attention being given to Anthropic Claude Mythos). It could STILL have been a publicity stunt unbeknownst to Chloe (Chief Ethicist), positioned to the public as a serious security breach, and she took the fall.
replyOr something to do with the very large Apple lawsuit they are weirdly posting conversations about on their public website
reply