In Section 6, the author attempts to assess Palantir's moral standing, but the chosen categories—"neutral/good/gray"—reflect a biased framework. A more objective classification, like "neutral/good/bad," would have been more appropriate. This subtle shift raises questions about the methodology used to evaluate the company's ethical impact.
The introduction of "grey areas" as a distinct category seems to pre-emptively soften the possibility of negative judgments.
They are "difficult/thorny" questions only if you want them to be like that.
"Health insurance companies make difficult decisions all the time" a.k.a. do we screw up our clients manually or through AI?
The introduction of "grey areas" as a distinct category seems to pre-emptively soften the possibility of negative judgments.