It's very nice that it has the Apache 2.0 license, i.e. well understood license, instead of some "open weight" license with a lot of conditions.
replies(1):
That's obviously not true. Ethics often have some nuance and some subjectiveness, but it's not something entirely subjective up to "politics".
Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people.
Ethics are entirely subjective, as is inherently true of anything that supports "should" statements, because to justify any should statement, you need another "should" statement, you can never rest should entirely on "is" (you can, potentially, reset any entire system of "should" one root "should" axiom, though in practice most systems have more than one root axiom.)
And the process of coming to social consensus on a system of ethics is precisely politics.
You can dislike that this is true, but it is true.
> Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people.
Understanding that ethics is subjective does not mean that one does not have a strong ethical framework that they adhere to. It just means that one understands the fundamental nature of ethics and the kind of propositions that ethical propositions inherently are.
Understanding that ethics are subjective does not, in other words, imply the belief that all beliefs about ethics (or, a fortiori, matters that are inherently subjective more generally) are of equal moral/ethical merit.