Should scientists apply to OpenAI's fund for research on AI & mental health? Should policymakers consider it a credible safety effort?
Avriel Epps & I see it as "grantwashing," and it's an insult to anyone whose loved one's death involved chatbots.
https://www.techpolicy.press/beware-of-openais-grantwashing-on-ai-harms/
In grantwashing, tech firms commit a pittance to research that is doomed to be ineffective due to information that companies hold back.
Even if its creators are well-intentioned, the outcomes are well documented: Meta and other big tech firms have routinely done the same while undermining science.
OpenAI's funding announcement reveals how small a fig leaf they think will persuade a credulous public. Look at the size of the grants: $5k - $100k.
The median NIMH grant is $642k: mental health research requires deep care for participants.
Scientist I spoke with on multiple continents reacted *viscerally* to this.
@natematias wait, there鈥檚 actually an organisation called NIMH?? Do they experiment on rats?
So what's the alternative to grantwashing?
We offer several ideas, including one proposal by Alondra Nelson that borrows from the structure of the Human Genome project to dedicate 3-5% of R&D funding to safety and ethics research.
This article isn't just about OpenAI - grantwashing is a common tactic of tech firms trying to manage their reputations in the face of mounting accusations of harm.
As Orben and I argued this spring, we can do better - and that involves changing how we do science too.
There's a lesson here for advocates too - at a time of deep cuts to US health research, even small grants from a tech firm however flawed, can save careers of next generation scientists.
If we truly want trustworthy science on technology and society, we need to develop new ways to fund life-saving research on tech safety.
But for now, do please look the gift horse of OpenAI mental health funding in the mouth.
