sanitation@lemmy.today to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agoTerrified Tech Execs Are Traveling With Armed Bodyguards as AI Backlash Growswww.yahoo.comexternal-linkmessage-square247fedilinkarrow-up1887
arrow-up1887external-linkTerrified Tech Execs Are Traveling With Armed Bodyguards as AI Backlash Growswww.yahoo.comsanitation@lemmy.today to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square247fedilink
minus-squareluciferofastora@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·2 days agoBecause the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.
minus-squarePabloSexcrowbar@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 days agoOk, let’s say a ceo objects to the boards instructions. They’ll fire that CEO and hire another one that’ll listen. The problem persists.
minus-squareluciferofastora@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 days agoThen it would be the new CEO’s duty to likewise object to unethical instructions. Mind, I’m not saying the board shouldn’t be held responsible. I’m saying the CEO is still complicit, even if he’s “just following orders”.
Because the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.
Ok, let’s say a ceo objects to the boards instructions. They’ll fire that CEO and hire another one that’ll listen. The problem persists.
Then it would be the new CEO’s duty to likewise object to unethical instructions.
Mind, I’m not saying the board shouldn’t be held responsible. I’m saying the CEO is still complicit, even if he’s “just following orders”.