There is no urgency to build "AI". There is no urgency to use "AI". There is no benefit to this race aside from (perceived) short-term profit gains.

It is very telling that when push comes to shove, despite having attracted some very talented, thoughtful, proactive, researchers, the tech cos decide they're better off without ethics/responsible AI teams.

>>

Self-regulation was never going to be sufficient, but I believe that internal teams working in concert with external regulation could have been a really beneficial combination.

twitter.com/emilymbender/statu…

>>

(Nitter addon enabled: Twitter links via https://nitter.net)

So, what can we do as researchers and otherwise, in this moment?

I have to believe there is value in calling out #AIhype when we see it, in declining to participate in the #AIhype, and in advocating for regulation.

And those who are making buck off of this will try to tell us: You can't regulate this --- that will stifle progress!

To which I ask: Progress towards what, exactly?

>>

And they will tell us: You can't possibly regulate effectively anyway, because the tech is moving too fast.

But (channeling Ryan Calo here): The point of regulation isn't to micromanage specific technologies but rather to establish and protect rights. And those are enduring.

>>

I call on everyone who is close to this tech: we have a job to do here. The techcos where the $, data and power have accumulated are abandoning even the pretext of "responsible" development, in a race to the bottom.

At the very least, we should be working to educate those around us not to fall for the hype---to never accept "AI" medical advice, legal advice, psychotherapy, etc.

And for any software developer: You likely will find yourself roped into this.

Try to keep a balanced view, assessing where it fills an actual need & where it's just hype.

Ignore anyone who worries about you getting left behind, they don't know what they're talking about!