But the mere choice of job title is usually not a deontology violation for these people, because they don’t think it has the harms to the world you think it does!
I don’t think this step is locally valid? Or at least, in many situations, I don’t think ignorance of the consequences if your actions absolves you of responsibility for them.
As an example, if you work hard to help elect a politician who you believe was principled and good, and then when they get into office they’re a craven sellout who causes thousands of people to die, you bear some responsibility for it and for cleaning up your mess. As another example, if you work hard at a company and then it turns out the company is a scam and you’ve stolen money from all your customers, you bear some responsibility to clean up the mess and help the people whose lives your work ruined.
Relatedly, it is often the case that the right point to apply liability is when someone takes an action with a lot of downside, regardless of intent. Here are some legal examples a shoggoth gave me of holding people accountable even if they didn’t know the harm they were causing.
A company can be liable for harm caused by its products even if it followed all safety procedures.
Employers are held responsible for harms caused by employees acting within the scope of their job.
Sellers may be liable for false statements that cause harm, even if they made them in good faith.
These examples are a bit different. Anyhow, I think that if you work at a company that builds a doomsday machine, you bear some responsibility for that even if you didn’t know.
Yeah, sorry—I agree that was a bit sloppy of me. I think it is very reasonable to accuse people working at major AI labs of something like negligence / willful ignorance, and I agree that can be a pretty serious moral failing (indeed I think it’s plausibly the primary moral failing of many AI lab employees). My objection is more to the way the parent comment is connoting “evil” just from one’s employer leading to bad outcomes as if those outcomes are the known intent of such employees.
I don’t think this step is locally valid? Or at least, in many situations, I don’t think ignorance of the consequences if your actions absolves you of responsibility for them.
As an example, if you work hard to help elect a politician who you believe was principled and good, and then when they get into office they’re a craven sellout who causes thousands of people to die, you bear some responsibility for it and for cleaning up your mess. As another example, if you work hard at a company and then it turns out the company is a scam and you’ve stolen money from all your customers, you bear some responsibility to clean up the mess and help the people whose lives your work ruined.
Relatedly, it is often the case that the right point to apply liability is when someone takes an action with a lot of downside, regardless of intent. Here are some legal examples a shoggoth gave me of holding people accountable even if they didn’t know the harm they were causing.
A company can be liable for harm caused by its products even if it followed all safety procedures.
Employers are held responsible for harms caused by employees acting within the scope of their job.
Sellers may be liable for false statements that cause harm, even if they made them in good faith.
These examples are a bit different. Anyhow, I think that if you work at a company that builds a doomsday machine, you bear some responsibility for that even if you didn’t know.
Yeah, sorry—I agree that was a bit sloppy of me. I think it is very reasonable to accuse people working at major AI labs of something like negligence / willful ignorance, and I agree that can be a pretty serious moral failing (indeed I think it’s plausibly the primary moral failing of many AI lab employees). My objection is more to the way the parent comment is connoting “evil” just from one’s employer leading to bad outcomes as if those outcomes are the known intent of such employees.