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

101–110 of 373 posts

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#101

Post by Reelin »

mike00632 wrote: post #93
ehsankia wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of a council is to bring different ideas, so they can approach a problem from multiple directions. If you remove all the people you disagree with, you no longer have a council, you've got an echo chamber. If you are threatened by 1 person out of 8 having different views, then maybe your ideas aren't as strong as you thought?

So if you want a council on the exploration of space should you include a few flat-Earthers?

Probably not. That would be equivalent to including someone who claims "radiation from computers interferes with your brain" on this AI panel, or perhaps someone who claims "krakens pose an immediate danger to inattentive sailors" on a maritime safety council.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#102

Post by [deleted] »

deviomi wrote: post #86
telltruth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly everyone who hasn't done anything technical but wants to ride AI train chooses to become "AI Ethics" person these days. You can look up vast number of these AI ethics "experts" giving talks on this subject without ever having trained a model for anything. So apparently the bar for this "field" is zero experience in anything technical but great ability to hold a microphone and induce FUD in public.

Do you need to be a nuclear physicist to have opinions on ethics of nuclear weapons?

[deleted]

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#103

Post by goatlover »

deviomi wrote: post #86
telltruth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly everyone who hasn't done anything technical but wants to ride AI train chooses to become "AI Ethics" person these days. You can look up vast number of these AI ethics "experts" giving talks on this subject without ever having trained a model for anything. So apparently the bar for this "field" is zero experience in anything technical but great ability to hold a microphone and induce FUD in public.

Do you need to be a nuclear physicist to have opinions on ethics of nuclear weapons?

Nope, and it seems like nuclear physicists back in the day could have used some stronger opinions on the ethics of making nuclear weapons.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#105

Post by telltruth »

ecshafer wrote: post #87
telltruth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly everyone who hasn't done anything technical but wants to ride AI train chooses to become "AI Ethics" person these days. You can look up vast number of these AI ethics "experts" giving talks on this subject without ever having trained a model for anything. So apparently the bar for this "field" is zero experience in anything technical but great ability to hold a microphone and induce FUD in public.

I would trust an ai ethicist with a PhD in philosophy or ethics of their ideas were coherent. Tech backgrounds are not necessarily required.

The big problem is that these people don't understand what current tech really is. The media and Musk have hyped this up as "AI" but it's not even remotely AI. These people go around and present slides as if sky is falling and induce massive FUD in general public. There is no real AI as far as anyone technical is concerned. So whole deal about "AI Ethics" is great way to get on AI train and get massive salaries for non-technical people. There are few things were policy is needed like surveillance and detecting model bias - but these are very few things and they do need awareness of actual capabilities and understanding of tech.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#106

Post by telltruth »

deviomi wrote: post #86
telltruth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly everyone who hasn't done anything technical but wants to ride AI train chooses to become "AI Ethics" person these days. You can look up vast number of these AI ethics "experts" giving talks on this subject without ever having trained a model for anything. So apparently the bar for this "field" is zero experience in anything technical but great ability to hold a microphone and induce FUD in public.

Do you need to be a nuclear physicist to have opinions on ethics of nuclear weapons?

You can have opinion on anything without knowing anything. This is what forums like this is about :). But if you want to give an informed opinion, you do need to understand the tech. For example, how do you decide what restrictions to put in export of nuclear power tech if you have no clue how it can be re-purposed to make a bomb?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#107

Post by intertextuality »

deviomi wrote: post #86
telltruth wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly everyone who hasn't done anything technical but wants to ride AI train chooses to become "AI Ethics" person these days. You can look up vast number of these AI ethics "experts" giving talks on this subject without ever having trained a model for anything. So apparently the bar for this "field" is zero experience in anything technical but great ability to hold a microphone and induce FUD in public.

Do you need to be a nuclear physicist to have opinions on ethics of nuclear weapons?

Anyone can have an opinion. When a person's title at a company is "Nuclear Weapon Ethics" and they go around giving talks, I would 100% expect them to have some sort of practical experience and knowledge in that domain.

Just because you know a thing or two about ethics doesn't mean you are equipped to discuss a particular domain.

How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what's -realistically- possible?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#108

Post by Krasnol »

telltruth wrote: post #105
ecshafer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would trust an ai ethicist with a PhD in philosophy or ethics of their ideas were coherent. Tech backgrounds are not necessarily required.

The big problem is that these people don't understand what current tech really is. The media and Musk have hyped this up as "AI" but it's not even remotely AI. These people go around and present slides as if sky is falling and induce massive FUD in general public. There is no real AI as far as anyone technical is concerned. So whole deal about "AI Ethics" is great way to get on AI train and get massive salaries for n…

Well, that's the reason why such a board shouldn't consist of non-tech people only. But if the tech people can't explain to the philosophers etc. what the current and future state of tech is so those can form an educated opinion on it than it's a pretty bad situation. I don't want to let the tech bubble decide on ethical questions. They failed spectacular on it in the last decade already and with ML tools becoming more and more popular, the range of misuse is growing also.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#109

Post by m1el »

everdev wrote: post #42

This article is a little light on details, but there's a more in depth article here: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/4/18295933/google-... The initial complaint was around comments from 1 of the 8 board members: Kay Coles James The complaint was published Apr. 1 in a Medium post: https://medium.com/@against.transphobia/googlers-against-tra... As evidence the post lists 3 tweets from Kay Cole James: https://…

The two last links are the same.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#110

Post by Rebelgecko »

mike00632 wrote: post #93
ehsankia wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of a council is to bring different ideas, so they can approach a problem from multiple directions. If you remove all the people you disagree with, you no longer have a council, you've got an echo chamber. If you are threatened by 1 person out of 8 having different views, then maybe your ideas aren't as strong as you thought?

So if you want a council on the exploration of space should you include a few flat-Earthers?

Most people can tell the difference between someone you don't agree with for ideological reasons and someone you don't agree with because they ignore facts for attention. I'm assuming the poster was referring to the former. There's a big difference between say, having a Republican on the committee vs a Holocaust denier. While it requires a certain amount of empathy to realize that rational people can have the same inputs as you but produce different opinions, I think it's a beneficial thing to recognize.
Post reply on HN