[dasil003]

Is it really fair to saddle the conscientious objectors with this critique? What about the people that stay and continue to profit exponentially as the negative outcomes become more and more clear? Are the anti-AI and anti-tech doomers who would never in a million years take a tech job actually more impactful in mitigating harms?

To be clear, I agree with the problem from a systemic perspective, I just don't agree with how blame/frustration is being applied to an individual in this case.

[probably_wrong]

Is that the right word for it? I feel that a "conscious objector" is a powerless person whose only means of protesting an action is to refuse to do it. This researcher, on the other hand, helped build the technology he's cautioning about and has arguably profited from it.

If this researcher really thinks that AI is the problem, I'd argue that the other point raised in the article is better: stay in the organization and be a PITA for your cause. Otherwise, for an outside observer, there's no visible difference between "I object to this technology so I'm quitting" and "I made a fortune and now I'm off to enjoy it writing poetry".

[teg4n_]

Yes, it’s fair.

Yes, people that never participated are more impactful.

[longfacehorrace]

Nuremberg/just following orders might fly if we were talking about a cashier at Dollar General.

This is a genius tech bro who ignored warnings coming out institutions and general public frustration. Would be difficult to believe they didn't have some idea of the risks, how their reach into others lives manipulated agency.

Ground truth is apples:oranges but parallels to looting riches then fleeing Germany are hard to unsee.