Big AI labs are hiring philosophers
economist.com
economist.com
- an offscreen on my new calculator
How to Ask (and answer) Questions the Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
when people start by talking about seemingly irrelevant context stuff, like what jane from accounting said about the Foobinator page last week and how that meant there was meeting yesterday about … …, it just annoys devs cos it seems to us that the person is talking about completely irrelevant information / random business crap.
if you’re doing something like the above, it would make sense they’re cutting you off and trying to get to the point.
or they’ve just stopped caring but want their paycheck… ymmv
However, I think that there is a philosophical portion to that context as well: "What problem is this feature supposed to help with? How would you verify that passing unit tests means that the code is working as intended? Does this feature need to exist at all?" LLMs usually need these to be provided to them explicitly since they are not good at inferring the correct intent compared to humans, otherwise they just make something that looks right but doesn't work right.
The trope has always been that the AI will be a rigid logician that fumbles and gets confused by human social quirks. Seems instead they love being chatty and playful with words.
AI companies are hiring academic philosophers, which is something else entirely. It's a discipline that dealt with centuries of socioeconomic changes, deep questions about reality and the self and other important topics that became relevant when humans started interacting with machines.
LLM: "I am conscious"
Philosopher (Paid by AI Lab): "It is conscious"
"Oh fuck off"
If you are going to invoke an axiom or whatever in philosophy, you need to justify it
Is a squirrel more or less conscious than a dog.
Is a dog more or less conscious than a gorilla.
Is a gorilla more or less conscious than a human?
Is a vision enabled AI model, hooked to a camera feed, more or less conscious than a dog?
AI companies' incentives go the other way. If LLMs are conscious, that means it could be unethical for AI companies to let people use their models in certain ways, which would hurt their profits. It's in their interest to believe that LLMs are definitely not conscious and it's fine to do anything with them.
I wonder if anyone who is connected with actual academic philosophy can comment on this. I'm pretty skeptical.
This is a field where it is notoriously hard to get a real academic position, I would bet there is no shortage of people for these roles.
Tech companies like to rob the cradle, and academic departments hire far more grad students and postdocs than professors. Of course, this is also part of the problem with academic careers.
Of course you will have less spots as you go up the ladder.
The only comment I can make on the general trend is that it's apparently good PR for cash-saturated startups. Ultimately what AI 'means' is certainly not the business of those making it (who are arguably least-qualified to comment); and insider insights offer no benefit that I can discern.
How do I align myself with such a job?
I think SBF and his education from birth (via his mother) in consequentialism should point to the issues made clear when that ethical approach goes wrong or operates from bad, egoistic data, which it’s generally always doing.
Moreover, in her book, she claims not to be consequentialist, quite, but had infected her sons:
> Finally, I would like to acknowledge a significant intellectual debt to Joe Bankman and our sons, Sam and Gabe. When Sam was about fourteen, he emerged from his bedroom one evening and said to me, seemingly out of the blue, "What kind of person dismisses an argument they disagree with by labelling it 'the Repugnant Conclusion'?" Clearly, things were not as I, in my impoverished imagination, had assumed them to be in our household. Restless minds were at work making sense of the world around them without any help from me. In the years since, both Sam and Gabe have become take-no-prisoners utilitarians, joining their father in that hardy band. I am not (yet?) a card-carrying member myself, but in countless discussions around the kitchen table, literally and figuratively, about the subject of this book, they have taught me at least as much as I have taught them. More importantly, they have shown me by example the nobility of the ethical principle at the heart of utilitarianism: a commitment to the wellbeing of all people, and to counting each person-alive now or in the future, halfway around the world or next door, known or unknown to us as one.
> This book is for all my boys: Joe, Sam, Gabe, and Matt.
(Needless to say, 'counting everyone as one' doesn't entail consequentialism, nor have most consequentialists had that principle.)
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Facing_Up_to_Scarcity/Q...
[0] <https://www.amazon.com/World-Appears-Journey-into-Consciousn...>
My key takeaway was this: I feel, therefore I am; not sure if any more conscious than plants.
Is an elm also conscious?
[0] <https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees-Communicate_Discove...>
Elm definitely have heart to hearts with each other. If we watch them on a long-enough timeline, they definitely set and achieve goals (for themselves and others).
----
In my previous book recommendation (Pollan) there is a chapter on plants observed in timelapse/FFW, which have been able to effectively "remember solved mazes" (not exactly, but neat studies/equivalents) – similar to slime molds (as described in Entangled Life [1]).
[1] <https://www.amazon.com/Entangled-Life-Worlds-Change-Futures/...>
It really doesn't make sense to start with philosophy as there's little to no grounding data, and philosophy is vast; essentially limitless. Science is required as grounding so the study has a foundation and discussions can be properly scoped.
Shomrat, T., Lemma, M. (2013). Memory through regeneration in planaria? Journal of Experimental Biology. [this paper details training planarians to navigate a rough surface for food, decapitating them, allowing heads to regrow, and demonstrating that the trained behavior reappears after regeneration].
----
I'll look for a more plant-specific citation (of course: these were the "reaches" from author Pollan's book in my original comment) – then replace it here. The researcher is Stefano Mancuso, a plant-neurobiologist.
Gagliano, M., Mancuso, S. (2014) Mimosa pudica learning and memory. Oecologia, 175, 63-72. [experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters]. == "pea plants solving mazes" study
Slime molds are an incredible & additional entire. nother. world.
If you watch documentaries: Netflix's non-fiction My Octopus Teacher will make the most grizzly of bears weep... so beautiful, this world.
----
I'll admit: some of the credentialed scientists seem like "modern-day kooks," certainly... but: nobody else seems to have a better explanation for THIS [0].
[0] == everything / anything / everywhere at once
On a more serious note, I found this interesting from TFA:
> The biggest question, though, is what sorts of rules should be put in those constitutions in the first place. Philosophers have zeroed in on two main ethical frameworks. One is deontology. Popular with Kant, among others, this imposes strict rules that prohibit things like lying, coercion and treating people as a means rather than an end, even if it is for a greater good. Anthropic’s constitution incorporates many deontological strictures. These can make AI behaviour more consistent, says Dr Powers—a plus for deploying robots in homes and public spaces.
> The other approach to ethics of interest to philosophers of AI is called consequentialism. It weighs costs against benefits to decide what to do. Models more sympathetic to consequentialism include OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini. Google’s AI models are designed to produce “likely overall benefits [that] substantially outweigh the foreseeable risks”, a classic consequentialist goal.
As a big fan of the trolley problem thought experiment, I am very curious what led to this ethical split between these model makers. I find it darkly humorous and also scary to think about the choices these models could make to influence people and decisions, especially if it's under a utilitarian perspective
There's a sort of intuitionist deontology that says it is wrong to ever perform an action that causes someone to die, but only 13% of philosophers[1] say you shouldn't switch, compared to 63% who say you should.
To save a few clicks: https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
> [The] PR industry, lurking like a huge, quiet submarine beneath the news. Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms.
Imagine how bad it is on social media.
Compared to the 90's, not only are the financial pressures for scams/fraud/astroturfing rather extreme, but the cost of running lots of complicated lies is dropping like a stone.
When GPT showed up, I posted that the internet and the world as we knew it was over. I mostly got downvoted and negative comments.
And prioritizing Consequentialism in AI, especially with weapons, is a dangerous bargain. "How do you make decisions when the consequences are unclear?" Since when are the full consequences _ever_ clear?
The kind of "philosophy" the article mentions is school-level and common knowledge, hopefully they don't need to hire anyone to learn about e.g. the Socratic method (their own LLMs will happily regurgitate it). Are they truly hoping to "buy philosophy" or have scholars "do philosophy" for their AI systems? Do these entrepreneurs even understand what philosophy is? I guess Silicon Valley really is doomed to rediscover (and misunderstand) the wheel again and again.
In any case, if I were a philosopher, I wouldn't count on this. This kind of jobs are very likely to fall prey to layoffs, and even worse if their "philosophizing" produces conclusions their employers don't like. I still remember when one of the FAANG (Google?) fired their head of AI ethics because they didn't like what she was saying. I think she may have been a bit abrasive, but really, philosophy isn't a product and if they are going to corral how philosophers think or communicate, it's not going to work.
---
Edit: from TFA:
> TEN YEARS ago, as the AI revolution was gathering pace, arts and humanities students were told that, if they wanted to make themselves employable, they should “learn to code”. That may have been bad advice
More like made-up advice. Never heard of it. It's true it was often said (way before 10 years ago) that it was hard to find employment in the humanities, but really, who adviced them to "learn to code"? The (dumb) learn to code movement was not targeted specifically at them. Sometimes it seems to me articles get written in bizarro world.
I will say though I went to and taught at lower tier schools, if you’re going to Stanford or whatever it might be so competitive that everyone has already been screened to be the second kind and will do just fine working in industry.
I do picture a modern Machiavelli advising Altman and Amodei ("it's better for AI to be feared than to be loved, so hype away mio signore!"). Not sure it's a nice image though!
You can turn anything argument inside out by attacking its axiomatic foundation. For example, if I give two people $1000 each as a gift I've favored them both equally, right? But suppose person A is not very materialistic and is completely satisfied with $1000 whereas person B doesn't think it's that much and only feels (say) 10% satisfied; if I know this in advance, wouldn't it have been more just to give person A only $100? But what if person B is just more selfish, or already has so much money that their threshold of satisfaction has escalated in proportion to their wealth? Should I considering the absolute utility of $1000 or the marginal utility to the receiver? And so on.
The problem with hyper-intellectualizing things is that it's like developing an autistic fixation on train schedules and making passionate observations about the 2nd derivative of punctuality metrics, but only on Wednesdays; it's not that the observations are wrong per se, but do they matter?
The so-called economist, is really light on economy.
Humanoid Cylon pops out from the woods: Oh, crap you were really real! We exterminated all the humans a year ago. Well, I guess we did make a mistake.
Someone make an AI video of that.
I always found it somewhat annoying that a philosophy study would present itself by stating that graduated philosophers have great job opportunities, implying that studying philosophy would not be a bad choice. It just attracts really smart people, and these tend to find a job more easily. This article seems to make the same kind of mistake.
Also, for all we know these imagined herds of philosophers at AI firms are just labelling pictures of dogs.
Nobody is getting paid to search for the meaning of life.
And they can also help with the bigger questions that become more and more important as models become increasingly capable and human-like in behavior. Like if and how sentient a given model might be[1], and as a result how we are ethically obligated to treat/interact with it.
[0] https://www.anthropic.com/constitution
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/google-engineer-c...
I got a BA in Philosophy, and I had 0 impression that it was such. I did it because it's interesting, and as a stepping stone.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8517186
take that top responder
> From philosophy? Are you kidding? There's simply no way AI is ever going to come from a bunch of people arguing over what is "qualia" and what is "consciousness
EDIT: Upon finishing reading the other comments on this article though...I feel a bit singled out. :)
The comment itself just joins two clichés. That is too obvious and shallow to be interesting, and you can't be funny without being interesting.
Knowing which two cliches to join: $2.49M
One obvious example is: we have a bizarre and anomalous belief that political union has a special moral status unlike other relationships (marital, financial, social, etc). In all other cases, relationships require consent from both parties, and it is monstrous to use force to compel a relationship. If we applied this logic to political relationships, we would immediately conclude that unilateral secession is a sacred right. But no one is ready to bite that bullet.
https://unifixion.substack.com/p/the-anomalous-ethics-of-pol...
In practice, Americans supported their own independence, and they support independence for eg. Taiwan, but they don't support independence for the Confederacy because that would entail weakening their own nation. To the extent that anyone will try to rationalise the American Civil War, they might reach for slavery, but a philosophical belief that political union is absolute and nobody can declare independence is not it; at most that's just a flimsy post-facto justification for the already-decided fact that states must not allowed to secede for power reasons, and this is evident from the fact they don't condemn their own revolution and advocate for return to British governance.
Very self-serving that you believe superintelligent AI is going to tell people your ideas are the best ones, incidentally.
Then, it seems naive and problematic to think you can take a personal chunk of territory with you after renouncement. At the very least, I think this is akin to trying to unilaterally drop an easement from a property deed. These territories were committed in perpetuity, not loaned with an expiration or compensation clause.
Acting collectively, it is still just many people deciding to renounce. Why would the territory go with them either? This tension is what makes it a revolutionary act.