Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 373 posts

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#31

Post by gubbrora »

geofft wrote: post #20
gubbrora wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they agree? They could have produced advice of the form "from perspective A we should do x but from perspective B we should do y".

The point of debate is to test ideas by argument and logic and strengthen the strong ones and reject the weak ones. If you just say "Here are our thoughts," then the "what about robust debate" rationale doesn't hold up, and we can get to the direct question of whether James' worldview is moral or immoral, because the people taking the "advice" are going to have to pick either perspective A or perspective B. And if yo…

Well in the hypothetical, whoever takes their advice would need to make a synthesis of it somehow. E.g. most perspectives agree so let's do it this way. Or this question doesn't matter that much from most perspectives and according to this one it matters a lot so let's go with that one. Or even just ignoring them from time to time.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#32

Post by geofft »

andrenth wrote: post #27
geofft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "highest-profile African-American woman at Google" is someone who shows up for a meeting every few months and isn't even paid for it, isn't that kind of a problem? If they're trying to play the race card, they should look more carefully at what happens when you tap it....

Are you saying those Googlers wouldn’t be enraged if she had a salary to be on that board?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#33

Post by qmanjamz »

geofft wrote: post #26
qmanjamz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that if they limited their recommendations to only things the entire board could agree on, they could still be productive. For example, they may not agree on how bathrooms should be organized, but they probably all agree that bathrooms should exist. The fact that the board had wildly varying opinions is a feature, not a bug. The outputs of this board should be widely agreed upon. If they make declarati…

But the board is there to advise Google on hard questions, not easy ones. Is it unethical, for instance, to use AI to detect and block potential child pornography and flag it for potential referral to law enforcement? Probably not, but anyone can tell you that. Is it unethical to use AI to identify "gender ideology propaganda" and refer that to law enforcement in places where it's illegal? Depends on whether you thin…

If you stack your council with people of entirely one viewpoint, there's little point in having a council at all. Create a board entirely of Muslims and it's going to say we should fast during Ramadan. If Google tries to cite that board as an ethical authority to justify a policy of mandatory fasting, they're not going to convince many people.

With a diverse board, the answers to some questions are going to be inconclusive. But that doesn't mean the board shouldn't exist at all. And it certainly doesn't mean we should eliminate all diversity in the board.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#34

Post by ilaksh »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #17

The Heritage Foundation is very much in the mainstream of conservatism in the United States. They are not a fringe right wing organization. This very public protest about the appointment of the Heritage Foundation president to the AI ethics panel, and Google's subsequent dissolution of it, deepens the mistrust that conservatives have about Google and Silicon Valley in general being hostile to them and the feeling tha…

I don't think this should be downvoted. I'm not sure it's 40% but it is quite a lot and pretending people who have different worldviews don't exists or don't matter is not workable in the long run. Someone just trying to point out reality shouldn't be downvoted.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#36

Post by Pfhreak »

usepgp wrote: post #28
geofft wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineering at Google objected, and leadership at Google can't do anything without engineering at Google.

Not sure this is entirely true. Compared to some of the previous petitions / walkouts, this one was relatively minor, and was mostly the whiny ones.

What duty does the majority have to respect the feelings of the minority? Google recently posted that less than one percent of their population was non binary.

If there was a concern that impacted every non binary Googler and they all spoke out passionately, it might not register as a major voice, but it still seems important to listen.

Should we only concern ourselves with what the majority thinks? Isn't that the groupthink I see everyone talking about? Or should we take time to listen to these minority viewpoints and ensure we are building an environment where they feel welcome?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#38

Post by Reelin »

> “It’s become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can’t function as we wanted. So we’re ending the council and going back to the drawing board,”

The current environment is so overly toxic that I doubt it will be possible for any process that might produce reasonably useful results to be run in an open manner. This is particularly troubling given the number of very plausible potential problems posed by AI in the near-ish future. Unfortunately it also seems unlikely to me that any government regulation that emerges will be at all competent.

Post reply on HN