> expecting people to quit their jobs (and ability to provide for their partner and children) because of an ethics video series seems like a hollow solution
Why are you making straw man arguments? The person you're replying to didn't state or imply such an expectation, not did the OP.
In fact, meaningful regulation is discussed at length in the course. People involved in technology policy are one of the audiences that it's designed for.
I think the idea of this being an "area of discussion" is disingenuous, as those who consume the course (employees/creators of the software), have very little control over the ethics of AI. There will always be another coder who just graduated and looking to make money. I just disagree on the premise that having some engineers learn ethics can meaningfully change the state of things
The people funding massive amounts of development? That was my point in relation to ClearviewAI, as long as we allow bad actors, we will have a negative state of things. There will always be someone else out there to take new contracts because money talks. If these projects were illegal, corporations would avoid them.
The way to change the state of things would be to "write your congressman" (I really enjoy Sorry To Bother You's take on this idea). Basically we're fucked in terms of expecting ethical uses of AI
Obviously engineers and managers ought to have completed some study of ethics. To describe "data ethics" as a new niche as if to make up for poorly trained data scientists looks like window dressing to me.
Why are you making straw man arguments? The person you're replying to didn't state or imply such an expectation, not did the OP.
In fact, meaningful regulation is discussed at length in the course. People involved in technology policy are one of the audiences that it's designed for.