Corporations literally are maximizing profit. Researchers at least can have other motives.

If Microsoft came up with a way of making trillion dollars in profit by enslaving half the planet, it kinda has to do it.

This is a pretty simplistic and uneducated view on how big companies actually function.

Individual companies of course can and do do all kinds of things that may not be most profitable, but in the long run it's survival of the most profitable. Those get the most capital and thus have the most power of towards which goals resources are allocated.

Also companies, especially public companies, are typically mandated by law to prioritize profit.

There is no such law, ChatBLT told me so. But seriously, there isn’t because it so vague. Short term vs long term profits alone produces so much wiggle room alone that if such a law existed it would be meaningless.

There is no such law, ChatBLT told me so. But seriously, there isn’t because it so vague. Short term vs long term profits alone produces so much wiggle room that even if such a law existed it would be meaningless.

The term of the profit is of course a difficult matter of interpretation, but the charter is still profit, instead of e.g. ethics or benefits for mankind, on some time scale.

I'm not versed in US law, and common law is quite a thing to verse for a layman. But e.g. here's a non-layman's quite clear view: https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/our-continuing-s...

At least in Finnish law it's very plainly clear: "The purpose of a [limited liability] company is to make profit for shareholders, unless otherwise indicated in the bylaws."

("Yhtiön toiminnan tarkoituksena on tuottaa voittoa osakkeenomistajille, jollei yhtiöjärjestyksessä määrätä toisin." Osakeyhtiölaki, luku 1 pykälä 5)

Edit: For contrast, the purpose of universities (and thus, at least in theory, university researchers) is by law to "promote free research and scientific and cultural enlightenment, give highest education based on research and raise [their] students to serve the fatherland and mankind". [pardon for some awkward to translate phrases]

What's the educated view?

No one I've ever had as an investor would be OK with me enslaving the planet for 1 Trillion dollars...

You're talking about investors and shareholders like they're just machines that only ever prioritize profit. That's just obviously not true.

Have you heard of e.g. East India companies? Or United Fruit?

Most of stock is not owned by individual persons (not that there aren't individuals that don't give a shit about enslaving people), but other companies and institutions that by charter prioritize profit. E.g. Microsoft's institutional ownership is around 70%.

The presence of unethical people does not imply that all people are unethical, only that people are different. And that's my point. Reducing a company to "they will always maximize shareholder value" is incorrect - for many, many companies that is simply not true.

My point is that in the big picture ethics don't even matter, companies become something that transcend the individuals. Almost like algorithms that just happen to be implemented by humans (and exceedingly machines). There are no "they".

That's just not true. Companies have individuals in charge with considerable power. Those individuals can absolutely make ethical decisions.

E.g. Henry Ford tried to make an ethical decision for the company to cut some dividends to benefit workers and make the products cheaper. It was ruled illegal. His mistake actually was to say that the benefits would about more than profit; arguing the investment on shareholder profit grounds could well have passed.

Probably safe to say Henry Ford had considerable power in Ford Motor Co compared most executives today?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

> Probably safe to say Henry Ford had considerable power in Ford Motor Co compared most executives today?

That is not actually true, necessarily. Your power is typically very term dependent. A CEO who is also president of the board, and a majority shareholder, has far more power than a CEO who just stepped in temporarily and has only the powers provided by the by-laws.

Regardless, the solution to "I want to do something ethical that is not strictly in the company's best interest" is to make the case that it is the company's best interest. For example, "By investing in our employees we are actually prioritizing shareholder value". If you position it as "this is a move that hurts shareholders", of course that's illegal - companies have an obligation to every shareholder.

That also means that if you give your employees stock, they now have investor rights too. You can structure your company this way from the start, it's trivial and actually the norm in tech - stock is handed out to many employees.

Dude no. Companies literally start wars and have us peasants murdered.

A journalist was car bombed in broad daylight.

If you push the wrong buttons of trillion dollar corporations, they just off you can continue with business as usual.

If Microsoft sees trillions of dollars in ending all of your work, they’ll take it in a heart beat.

>"Researchers at least can have other motives."

I know about a man who had turned country upside down while "having people's best interests" in mind.

I know about many companies that have turned countries, and even continents, upside down while having shareholders' profit in mind.

So either is fucked up. Why would we prefer one over the other? What's your point?

Maybe having a dictator or profit motive running the show is not a binary choice?

I agree that OpenAI’s mission is probabky bad for humanity. But Microsoft is not a company that would hesitate at replacing a billion people permanently with AI.