• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI
    Reaction

    The case for protecting AI employees who cooperate with private auditors

    A post argues current whistleblower laws can leave AI employees exposed when they share safety concerns with private auditors.

    Jasmine WangJW
    Mackenzie ArnoldMA
    2 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    A post argues that if AI companies are required to cooperate with private auditors, they should also be barred from retaliating against employees who help them. It says whistleblower protections typically focus on reports to government officials and lawbreaking, leaving gaps for information about gross incompetence or disregard for safety that could matter to an audit.

    Combined views

    698

    2 Sources, first seen 3h ago

    Combined views

    698

    2 Sources, first seen 3h ago

    19 likes
    3h ago
    first seen 3h ago
    19 likes
    1 comments
    2 saves
    8 reposts
    1 comments
    2 saves
    8 reposts
    Featured Source

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    2 Sources

    Mackenzie Arnold@MackenZ_arnoldExisting whistleblower laws don't cover this. They should. But to get there, we'll need to think beyond historical whistleblower protections. Two big barriers we'll need to rethink: 1. Typically, reporting has to go to a government. That's understandable generally -- policymakers want to incentivize coming to officials + companies worry about sharing issues with third parties. But when private auditors are so central to your governance regime, that's not tenable. If the government is relying on auditors to oversee companies, you can't have a system where employees fear for their jobs if they cooperate with auditors. Once companies are required to cooperate with auditors by law, it seems a natural extension to require that they not interfere with the work of those auditors via retaliating against their employees. -- 2. Typically protection is limited to reporting law-breaking -- other valid grievance typically aren't enough. That's a problem in AI, because there just aren't that many laws to violate + increasing risk is worth reporting before the BadThings TM happen. Laws like SB 53 and the proposed federal WPA deal with this by also covering information the whistleblower has reasonable cause to believes poses a "specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk. But here, the information may not actually pose a direct danger. It may, for example, just show gross incompetence and a disregard for safety. That's relevant information to get to an auditor even if it doesn't meet the general whistleblowing threshold. Here too, I think all of this gets easier once auditors are required, and the right can be tied to ~interfering with a lawfully required investigation or audit.3h
    Jasmine Wang@j_asminewangRT @MackenZ_arnold: Existing whistleblower laws don't cover this. They should. But to get there, we'll need to think beyond historical wh…1h

    2 Sources

    Mackenzie Arnold@MackenZ_arnoldExisting whistleblower laws don't cover this. They should. But to get there, we'll need to think beyond historical whistleblower protections. Two big barriers we'll need to rethink: 1. Typically, reporting has to go to a government. That's understandable generally -- policymakers want to incentivize coming to officials + companies worry about sharing issues with third parties. But when private auditors are so central to your governance regime, that's not tenable. If the government is relying on auditors to oversee companies, you can't have a system where employees fear for their jobs if they cooperate with auditors. Once companies are required to cooperate with auditors by law, it seems a natural extension to require that they not interfere with the work of those auditors via retaliating against their employees. -- 2. Typically protection is limited to reporting law-breaking -- other valid grievance typically aren't enough. That's a problem in AI, because there just aren't that many laws to violate + increasing risk is worth reporting before the BadThings TM happen. Laws like SB 53 and the proposed federal WPA deal with this by also covering information the whistleblower has reasonable cause to believes poses a "specific and substantial danger to the public health or safety resulting from a catastrophic risk. But here, the information may not actually pose a direct danger. It may, for example, just show gross incompetence and a disregard for safety. That's relevant information to get to an auditor even if it doesn't meet the general whistleblowing threshold. Here too, I think all of this gets easier once auditors are required, and the right can be tied to ~interfering with a lawfully required investigation or audit.3h
    Jasmine Wang@j_asminewangRT @MackenZ_arnold: Existing whistleblower laws don't cover this. They should. But to get there, we'll need to think beyond historical wh…1h