Hacker News Reader

Comment by nightowl_games | Hacker News Reader

I agree that his statement is inflammatory, but we can steel man the statement into something truthful and palatable:

It is far easier to evaluate a security researcher's output than an ethics researcher.

I think many of us are familiar with this concept, as many of us likely preferred math over english in school as we preferred being deterministically evaluated.

View on HN

Is it? If the security researchers don't find vulnerabilities, does that mean they don't exist? If the AI ethics researchers embarrass you, aren't they doing their jobs?

Since you, the employer, decide what the job is, maybe or maybe not. If you define the job as, "develop ideas and frameworks where we can accomplish our goals in the most ethical way possible," then publicly embarrassing the company might not be doing your job.

A good ethicist & communicator will probably be able to embarrass you if you're doing something wrong, but so will a comedian.

I don't think OP is claiming that there ethicists have no skill, but rather that it's fundamentally a lot more difficult to evaluate.

Just as a security researcher’s job is to find vulnerabilities and promote best practices, it’s not to hack and then publicly shame their employer. Ethics researchers should be the same, no? Find ethical issues and promote best practices, embarrassing your employer seems counterproductive except perhaps as a last resort.

This depends. Google project zero routinely discovers vulns in Google products.

However they're empowered to fix them, essentially no questions asked. So you don't often get p0 posts about unfixed bugs in Google products.

I imagine that depends on your contract?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com