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

111–120 of 373 posts

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#111

Post by sytelus »

mc32 wrote: post #5

So what now? No ethics board at all and it just proceeds without ethics oversight? Isn’t that state worse than having someone you disagree with on some principles but in theory provide constructive criticism where the politics don’t intersect? I mean, making some jobs obsolete or making decisions on recidivism etc I think are distinct from what a panelist thinks about an unrelated issue. Moreover this person didn’t p…

Just curious what do you think ethics oversight would accomplish in an ideal world? Give me some examples.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#112

Post by matt4077 »

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…

The central example of AI ethics is a self-driving car deciding whom to run over. That example is perfectly possible to occure even with today’s technology. I don’t know what this continuation of playing-chess-doesn’t-take-Intelligence griping is supposed to accomplish, except as posturing of people conflating perpetual contrarianism with insight.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#113

Post by matt4077 »

telltruth wrote: post #106
deviomi wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

International efforts against proliferation have been somewhat successful, even though they ultimately rely on politicians, not nuclear physicists. And in any case, a lack of knowledge regarding dual-use technology has never been the problem.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#114

Post by durability »

yalue wrote: post #9
geofft wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My sources at Google just couldn't see the panelists constructively working together on a panel at this point. Well, that's the point, isn't it? If the AI ethics council is meeting four times a year for a couple hours at most, and and has people who can't even agree on "Which bathroom should this person use," how are they going to produce productive advice for actual hard questions that haven't been well-explored?…

You're right about all of that, but shouldn't a meaningful board at least make some show of trying to include diverse opinions? The key word of course is "meaningful", and I think you're right on the money that Google wasn't interested in having a panel to discuss meaningful issues in the first place; it seems more likely that they wanted to be able to point to a source of "external" "unbiased" opinions to justify wh…

Diversity is great! Putting someone who advocates for not using AI on an AI ethics board is diversity. Putting someone who advocates for more/less/self regulation is diversity.

Putting someone hostile towards the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ rights? That’s not diversity. That has no place in 2019.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#115

Post by matt4077 »

ananth22by7 wrote: post #39

I fail to understand. Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir? People’s sensitivity boggles my mind. Can we not say things without having to walk on eggshells? What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in?

She was chosen for a position that does nothing but comment and publish views on issues. So yes.

This seems to be strange obsession of HN: people excusing (with words) the worst possible statements (words), because „words are not actions“ or „words have no meaning“.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#116

Post by C1sc0cat »

smelendez wrote: post #61
dx87 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it makes you feel any better, not everywhere is like that. I work at a mid sized technology consulting company on the east coast, and I've heard multiple managers say that they hate when they have to manage developers from the west coast. My manager told us about a time she got a nasty email from the lead developer of a team because she started an email with "Hey guys" instead of a gender neutral greeting.

That is regional, though. I'm from New York and I've addressed groups of older female relatives as "you guys" without anyone batting an eye. In other parts of the country that's not common and people see "guys" as gendered, and people feel like you're forgetting they're there. The word "dude" as a form of address is gender neutral and business appropriate some places and not others. It's a hard problem: Y'all works s…

I would have said dude is male but in the UK "guys" is now gender neutral amongst younger generations.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#117

Post by kevingadd »

educationdata wrote: post #70
geofft wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My sources at Google just couldn't see the panelists constructively working together on a panel at this point. Well, that's the point, isn't it? If the AI ethics council is meeting four times a year for a couple hours at most, and and has people who can't even agree on "Which bathroom should this person use," how are they going to produce productive advice for actual hard questions that haven't been well-explored?…

Is "Which bathroom should this person use" an easy question? If it is really easy, why it is so controversial? You may think it is an easy question, in reality it is an actual hard question.

It's a very easy question, almost all countries have resolved answers for it. They don't all agree, but it was very easy to answer. Many of them have clear, objective standards on how to apply the rules (that people choose to ignore or argue over), though some certainly are determined to make it as fuzzy as possible for their own agendas. You can easily find local regulations addressing this topic pretty easily for most parts of the US and european countries, also some other countries like Japan.

There's also the standard fallback answer for "which bathroom": if you make them all single occupancy, it doesn't matter which one. Sometimes that's the solution used in situations like schools.

So maybe pick a better example of a hard question that seems easy. (Though I get the relevance here, given the decried panelist's history and views)

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#118

Post by matt4077 »

ehsankia wrote: post #78
caconym_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?' Why not? When people in positions of power hold ignorant and/or harmful opinions, a stir should be made. One individual in particular comes to mind. > What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in? The kind where public figures curry favor with their bases of obstinately illiberal^[1] followers by intentionally spreading divisive…

This wasn't really a "position of power" though, it was just a council that would meet once in a while to talk about AI ethics. It was also 1 person out of 8. Don't get me wrong, I think her views are despicable, but if you can't even allow a single person of opposing view in your council, that only shows insecurity in your views. I highly doubt having one person with some past bigoted opinions is going to completely…

The are opinions that I would vehemently disagree with, yet not consider illegitimate. The Catholic Church, for example, does and says all sorts of horrible shit. Yet they have a rich intellectual history, are somewhat consistent (i. e. against abortion and also against the death penalty), and for better or worse represent a sizable portion of the population.

This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories. If you want them on your ethics board, you need to also invite flat earthers and people believing there’s a ham sandwich that rules the world. Because who are you to judge some opinions more legit than others.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#119

Post by matt4077 »

educationdata wrote: post #70
geofft wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My sources at Google just couldn't see the panelists constructively working together on a panel at this point. Well, that's the point, isn't it? If the AI ethics council is meeting four times a year for a couple hours at most, and and has people who can't even agree on "Which bathroom should this person use," how are they going to produce productive advice for actual hard questions that haven't been well-explored?…

Is "Which bathroom should this person use" an easy question? If it is really easy, why it is so controversial? You may think it is an easy question, in reality it is an actual hard question.

„Some say you shouldn’t exist. Others say you have a right to live. Hard question“

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#120

Post by yesofcourse »

ananth22by7 wrote: post #39

I fail to understand. Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir? People’s sensitivity boggles my mind. Can we not say things without having to walk on eggshells? What kind of unforgiving and judgemental culture are we living in?

> Is “comments” and “views on issues” enough to cause such a stir?

Of course?

If someone tweeted "Unfortunately, the holocaust didn't happen, but we can change that" and their view on the issue of "the Jewish Question" was "the parasites must be exterminated," then I imagine that you would be up in arms if they were ever appointed to an ethics council.

You might not think that James' views are bad enough to warrant the outcry, but can't you at least imagine why someone might think that? If you were trans, for instance, might you be worried about this person getting a position of potential influence?

Post reply on HN