this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
922 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

57374 readers
3705 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Pentagon has its eye on the leading AI company, which this week softened its ban on military use.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] afraid_of_zombies 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

On an unrelated matter. Do you think the first black woman president of harvard lost her position 100% because of plagiarism or were the other issues involved?

[–] Spedwell 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Sorry for the long reply, I got carried away. See the section below for my good-faith reply, and the bottom section for "what are you implying by asking me this?" response.


From the case studies in my scientific ethics course, I think she probably would have lost her job regardless, or at least been "asked to resign".

The fact it was in national news, and circulated for as long as it did, certainly had to do with her identity. I was visiting my family when the story was big, and the (old, conservative, racist) members of the family definitely formed the opinion that she was a 'token hire' and that her race helped her con her way to the top despite a lack of merit.

So there is definitely a race-related effect to the story (and probably some of the "anti- liberal university" mentality). I don't know enough about how the decision was made to say whether she would have been fired those effects were not present.


Just some meta discussion: I'm 100% reading into your line of questioning, for better or worse. But it seems you have pinned me as the particular type of bigot that likes to deny systemic biases exist. I want to just head that off at the pass and say I didn't mean to entirely deny your explanation as plausible, but that given a deeper view of the cultural ecosystem of OpenAI it ceases to be likely.

I don't know your background on the topic, but I enjoy following voices critical of effective altruism, long-termism, and effective accelerationism. A good gateway into this circle of critics is the podcast Tech Won't Save Us (the 23/11/23 episode actually discusses the OpenAI incident). Having that background, it is easy to paint some fairly convincing pictures for what went on at OpenAI, before Altman's sexuality enters the equation.

[–] afraid_of_zombies 1 points 7 months ago

I don't think you are a bigot and I think you are capable of understanding that bigotry exists. Given the timeline, he accounces his engagement to a man, and then is fired for very vague reasons, and then brought back when there is pusback, and no one wants to discuss what was going on during those secret meetings, this is the conclusion that makes the most sense.

All it would take to disprove this is for OPENai to release all transcripts and emails about the event. It speaks volumes that they have not done so.

Next week it will be some other minority forced out of a position and the organization that did it will have other vague reasons. You know what the single most effective way to get rid of institutional racism? Transparency.