Re:Statement on AI Risk
by haldujai on Tuesday May 30, 2023 @06:18PM
(#36131761)
I think you’re misunderstanding my point.
I never said “they should have disclosed a conflict they did not disclose.”
Disclosures are absent from this initiative, some signatories have self-identified their affiliation by their own volition and even for those it is not in the context of a conflict disclosure.
There is no “signatories have no relevant disclosures” statement for those who did not for the omission to be malfeasance and pointing out the absence of a disclosure statement is not accusatory of the individuals, rather that the initiative is not transparent about potential conflicts.
Once again, it is standard practice in academia to make a disclosure statement if lecturing or publishing. While it is not mandatory for initiatives calling for regulation it would be nice to have.
I never said “they should have disclosed a conflict they did not disclose.”
Disclosures are absent from this initiative, some signatories have self-identified their affiliation by their own volition and even for those it is not in the context of a conflict disclosure.
There is no “signatories have no relevant disclosures” statement for those who did not for the omission to be malfeasance and pointing out the absence of a disclosure statement is not accusatory of the individuals, rather that the initiative is not transparent about potential conflicts.
Once again, it is standard practice in academia to make a disclosure statement if lecturing or publishing. While it is not mandatory for initiatives calling for regulation it would be nice to have.