8 ms·

> Previously, she was chief ethicist at Meta. She spent 6 years at Meta. I get the sense there are other factors at play than "ethics departments are just PR s

by wxw 1mo ago

> Previously, she was chief ethicist at Meta. She spent 6 years at Meta. I get the sense there are other factors at play than "ethics departments are just PR stunts". There's no way she isn't already aware of that. Unfortunately, the article is light on any other details.

throwa356262 1mo ago
[flagged]
- aaroninsf 1mo ago
  This 100%. Even in the target-rich environment of late-stage kleptocratic surveillance capitalism, it is hard to pick out a less ethical firm which has done more moral and direct harm, to more people, with as durable a record of defying all attempts and internal and external at harm reduction. Never use their products. Never partner. Never participate.
- mtlynch 1mo ago
  Strangely, a few years ago, Facebook hired a rabbi and appointed him "Director of Responsible Innovation."[0] He did an interview on Search Engine that I thought was interesting,[1] but it definitely seemed like there was more to the story than just, "Facebook needed to be ethical, and this guy was so good at ethics that he decided to help out." [0] https://chochmat.org/rabbi-zvika-krieger/ https://chochmat.org/rabbi-zvika-krieger/ [1] https://www.searchengine.show/what-does-it-feel-like-to-believe-in-god-classic/ https://www.searchengine.show/what-does-it-feel-like-to-beli...
- stock_toaster 1mo ago
  Wow. Someone could be "chief ethicist at Meta" under Zuckerberg for 6 years, but couldn't make it even a single year under Altman. That's an interesting data point.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
beloch 1mo ago
If "ethics departments are just PR stunts", then Bakalar would have been a terrible hire for OpenAI. Facebook's grudging and lacklustre response to their role in the Rohingya genocide would have happened mostly under her watch. While she was there, Meta went from being a company that lacks ethics to a company that lacks ethics and is widely perceived as lacking ethics. Perhaps she was the only person in the room raising ethical issues, but it's clear nobody at Meta listened to her if she was. It's possible she came to view her role at Meta as having enabled the company to continue its bad behaviour and decided against doing the same thing at OpenAI. Alternatively, things at OpenAI could be so bad that an ethicist who stuck with Meta for 6 years decided she couldn't stay any longer. Either way, from a PR perspective, this is spherically awful for OpenAI. This comes at a time when there is huge pushback against all AI companies due to, in large part, ethical concerns. As with Flock, there is the threat that physical infrastructure, such as data-centres, could be attacked if nothing is done to win back public opinion. OpenAI would be wise to take Bakalar's departure seriously.
- dtmooreiv 1mo ago
  An aside, but what does "spherically awful" mean?
  - m-ee 1mo ago
    Bad no matter which side you look at it. Fritz Zwicky coined the term as spherical bastard
  - randysalami 1mo ago
    All-around awful?
- bigyabai 1mo ago
  People say this, like "oh you'll never get a job in this industry again!" but seem to ignore that these incidents count as professional experience. It's possible that she was screened on the Rohingya situation when she was interviewing for the position, or mentioned it when she was asked about challenging or conflicting narratives she received from the executives. It's likely that her response was what qualified her for the job at OpenAI, there were probably hundreds of candidates that had never even come close to that level of damage control. Again, look at Sam Altman and tell me with a straight face that he's hiring goody-two-shoes to fill these seats. He knows where the puck is headed, OpenAI's use by the state will be ugly and they need "ethicists" to help assuage the PR disaster. Considering that Meta's still afloat, she didn't completely abdicate her responsibility there. She might be just what OpenAI needs to avoid being lambasted for military and surveillance use.
alexashka 1mo ago
She probably had the epiphany that life is short and she's already rich. It takes a surprising amount of time for nepo babies to realize life is about more than making sure you're doing at least as good as other nepo babies you grew up with.
- fn-mote 1mo ago
  > She probably had the epiphany that life is short and she's already rich. This is a very optimistic take. Most people don’t take this route, so without evidence I don’t think it should be a first guess. No information does not mean “everything was good”. Usually the opposite.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]

by wxw 1mo ago

throwa356262 1mo ago

[flagged]

aaroninsf 1mo ago
This 100%. Even in the target-rich environment of late-stage kleptocratic surveillance capitalism, it is hard to pick out a less ethical firm which has done more moral and direct harm, to more people, with as durable a record of defying all attempts and internal and external at harm reduction. Never use their products. Never partner. Never participate.
mtlynch 1mo ago
Strangely, a few years ago, Facebook hired a rabbi and appointed him "Director of Responsible Innovation."[0] He did an interview on Search Engine that I thought was interesting,[1] but it definitely seemed like there was more to the story than just, "Facebook needed to be ethical, and this guy was so good at ethics that he decided to help out." [0] https://chochmat.org/rabbi-zvika-krieger/ https://chochmat.org/rabbi-zvika-krieger/ [1] https://www.searchengine.show/what-does-it-feel-like-to-believe-in-god-classic/ https://www.searchengine.show/what-does-it-feel-like-to-beli...
stock_toaster 1mo ago
Wow. Someone could be "chief ethicist at Meta" under Zuckerberg for 6 years, but couldn't make it even a single year under Altman. That's an interesting data point.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

beloch 1mo ago

If "ethics departments are just PR stunts", then Bakalar would have been a terrible hire for OpenAI. Facebook's grudging and lacklustre response to their role in the Rohingya genocide would have happened mostly under her watch. While she was there, Meta went from being a company that lacks ethics to a company that lacks ethics and is widely perceived as lacking ethics. Perhaps she was the only person in the room raising ethical issues, but it's clear nobody at Meta listened to her if she was. It's possible she came to view her role at Meta as having enabled the company to continue its bad behaviour and decided against doing the same thing at OpenAI. Alternatively, things at OpenAI could be so bad that an ethicist who stuck with Meta for 6 years decided she couldn't stay any longer. Either way, from a PR perspective, this is spherically awful for OpenAI. This comes at a time when there is huge pushback against all AI companies due to, in large part, ethical concerns. As with Flock, there is the threat that physical infrastructure, such as data-centres, could be attacked if nothing is done to win back public opinion. OpenAI would be wise to take Bakalar's departure seriously.

dtmooreiv 1mo ago
An aside, but what does "spherically awful" mean?
- m-ee 1mo ago
  Bad no matter which side you look at it. Fritz Zwicky coined the term as spherical bastard
- randysalami 1mo ago
  All-around awful?
bigyabai 1mo ago
People say this, like "oh you'll never get a job in this industry again!" but seem to ignore that these incidents count as professional experience. It's possible that she was screened on the Rohingya situation when she was interviewing for the position, or mentioned it when she was asked about challenging or conflicting narratives she received from the executives. It's likely that her response was what qualified her for the job at OpenAI, there were probably hundreds of candidates that had never even come close to that level of damage control. Again, look at Sam Altman and tell me with a straight face that he's hiring goody-two-shoes to fill these seats. He knows where the puck is headed, OpenAI's use by the state will be ugly and they need "ethicists" to help assuage the PR disaster. Considering that Meta's still afloat, she didn't completely abdicate her responsibility there. She might be just what OpenAI needs to avoid being lambasted for military and surveillance use.

alexashka 1mo ago

She probably had the epiphany that life is short and she's already rich. It takes a surprising amount of time for nepo babies to realize life is about more than making sure you're doing at least as good as other nepo babies you grew up with.

fn-mote 1mo ago
> She probably had the epiphany that life is short and she's already rich. This is a very optimistic take. Most people don’t take this route, so without evidence I don’t think it should be a first guess. No information does not mean “everything was good”. Usually the opposite.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]