I fail the idealogical Turing test for whoever authored this (presuming it’s not intended as a joke), and I’m far enough from being able to model it logically that I’m OK being in the “that’s silly” camp.
It’s not just that I don’t agree, I can’t even figure out what the author wants me to do differently tomorrow than I did yesterday, and when do guess at some phrases like “humans before business” and “We must question our intent and listen to our hearts” I have trouble believing anyone sane actually wants that.
The specific silliness of “humans before business” is pretty straightforward: business is something humans do, and “humans before this thing that humans do” is meaningless or tautological. Business doesn’t exist without humans, right?
The specific silliness of “humans before business” is pretty straightforward: business is something humans do, and “humans before this thing that humans do” is meaningless or tautological. Business doesn’t exist without humans, right?
Eh, it’s not as absurd as that. You know how we worry that AI’s might optimize something easily quantifiable, but in a way that destroys human value? I think it’s entierly reasonable to think that businesses may do the same thing, and optimize for their own profit in a way that destroys human value in general. For example, the way Facebook is to a significant extent designed to maximize getting clicks and eyeballs in manipulative ways that do not actually serve human communication needs for the users.
It’s not just that I don’t agree, I can’t even figure out what the author wants me to do differently tomorrow than I did yesterday, and when do guess at some phrases like “humans before business” and “We must question our intent and listen to our hearts” I have trouble believing anyone sane actually wants that.
I said it’s full of applause lights.
The specific silliness of “humans before business” is pretty straightforward: business is something humans do, and “humans before this thing that humans do” is meaningless or tautological. Business doesn’t exist without humans, right?
Not necessarily, it is quite easy to put Business before humans.
Measuring the morality of your actions by monetary reward, and not net utility generated.
Prioritising the interest of the corporation before the good of the public.
Ignoring it according little respect to public interest.
Humans before Business is collective thinking. We should prioritise the public over our private and corporate interests. Businesses are amoral, and we should be there voice of morality in the corporate world.
I fail the idealogical Turing test for whoever authored this (presuming it’s not intended as a joke), and I’m far enough from being able to model it logically that I’m OK being in the “that’s silly” camp.
It makes several recommendations:
Prioritise public interest in all you do.
Be the voice of morality in the corporate world.
Pay more attention to the ethics of technology, it’s not just matter of “can we do this?”; the more important question is “should we do this?”.
There are probably more points, but this is the limit of my ability to ITT the Copenhagen letter without rereading it and investing more effort than I’m willing to.
Thomas probably had the right idea. Trying to deconstruct the “business is not human” confusion or “public interest is distinct from other behaviors” weirdness requires a lot more effort than I’m likely to put in.
I fail the idealogical Turing test for whoever authored this (presuming it’s not intended as a joke), and I’m far enough from being able to model it logically that I’m OK being in the “that’s silly” camp.
It’s not just that I don’t agree, I can’t even figure out what the author wants me to do differently tomorrow than I did yesterday, and when do guess at some phrases like “humans before business” and “We must question our intent and listen to our hearts” I have trouble believing anyone sane actually wants that.
The specific silliness of “humans before business” is pretty straightforward: business is something humans do, and “humans before this thing that humans do” is meaningless or tautological. Business doesn’t exist without humans, right?
Eh, it’s not as absurd as that. You know how we worry that AI’s might optimize something easily quantifiable, but in a way that destroys human value? I think it’s entierly reasonable to think that businesses may do the same thing, and optimize for their own profit in a way that destroys human value in general. For example, the way Facebook is to a significant extent designed to maximize getting clicks and eyeballs in manipulative ways that do not actually serve human communication needs for the users.
I said it’s full of applause lights.
Not necessarily, it is quite easy to put Business before humans.
Measuring the morality of your actions by monetary reward, and not net utility generated.
Prioritising the interest of the corporation before the good of the public.
Ignoring it according little respect to public interest.
Humans before Business is collective thinking. We should prioritise the public over our private and corporate interests. Businesses are amoral, and we should be there voice of morality in the corporate world.
It makes several recommendations:
Prioritise public interest in all you do.
Be the voice of morality in the corporate world.
Pay more attention to the ethics of technology, it’s not just matter of “can we do this?”; the more important question is “should we do this?”.
There are probably more points, but this is the limit of my ability to ITT the Copenhagen letter without rereading it and investing more effort than I’m willing to.
Thomas probably had the right idea. Trying to deconstruct the “business is not human” confusion or “public interest is distinct from other behaviors” weirdness requires a lot more effort than I’m likely to put in.