Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry • Hacker News Board

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#131

Post by matt4077 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

93s6oz wrote: post #127

matt4077 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is polarising. An extreme take. I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed. Just that men should not be able to use women bathrooms. In this case, that's the argument. Turning it into something like that is not going to help anybody.

It’s polarizing only if you accept the you-should-die part one of the poles, which is sort of the problem I was getting at. I would characterize it more as reductio ad absurdum.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#132

Post by Veen » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:37 AM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #63

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?' 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…

Can you think of a conservative who you don't think holds "ignorant or harmful opinions"?

If not, all you've said is that conservatives shouldn't be allowed a voice in context such as this. I for one, although not a conservative, think that conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#133

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

93s6oz wrote: post #127

matt4077 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is polarising. An extreme take. I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed. Just that men should not be able to use women bathrooms. In this case, that's the argument. Turning it into something like that is not going to help anybody.

> I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed

Brunei?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#134

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:48 AM UTC

vilhelm_s wrote: post #44

I thought this twitter thread by Kelsey Piper was pretty good: > as I look through her history I am mostly confused why she was chosen in the first place. She doesn't have any background in tech. She doesn't have any prior writing or research related to AI. No background in the other topics that come up - surveillance, data privacy, international security. She's mostly a culture warrior, so no wonder now we're having…

[deleted]

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#135

Post by roenxi » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:50 AM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #130

roenxi wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. James wasn't invited because she believes Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracies; so that argument doesn't make sense. Those co…

She never wrote anything on AI ethics, so she most definitely was invited for some other, unrelated action of hers. it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind.

> She never wrote anything on AI ethics, so she most definitely was invited for some other, unrelated action of hers.

Yes.

> it‘s also not unrelated, because it speaks to her ability to evaluate facts, and to her soundness of mind.

Well, her record of success also speaks to her ability to evaluate facts and suggests she is doing fine.

Believing something that there is clear evidence against is a very common affliction. As long as someone isn't actively acting on their misconceptions, it doesn't suggest anything.

If you demand that leaders are perfect, you will discover all your leaders are liars.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#136

Post by tomp » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:57 AM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #119

educationdata wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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“

Oh come on you're making a huge strawman.

Personally, I don't see a point in sex/gender-segregated bathroom at all. The only segreggation that makes sense to me is sitting/standing (which mostly conincides with private/non-private).

But if we want sex-segregated bathrooms (and AFAIK many governments force that), then there's little point if people can just randomly change their mind about which category they belong to. What's the point of categories then?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#137

Post by birksherty » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:14 AM UTC

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…

Why should only tech people decide our lives? They don't have any ethics as we have seen in american companies like Google and fb. They only care about money. These companies definitely needed some people outside their tech bubble long time ago.

Tech people can design the tech. But here we are talking about the impact and those people should not be the one deciding everything. They are doing that over a decade and disappointed.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#138

Post by birksherty » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:20 AM UTC

intertextuality wrote: post #107

deviomi wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People can definitely say what should be allowed and what is not without achiving that result currently.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#139

Post by birksherty » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:26 AM UTC

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?

How do we let only tech people decide ethics if they don't care about ethics like we have seen in Facebook?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#140

Post by jcims » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:33 AM UTC

kevingadd wrote: post #122

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…

There's an argument to be made on the political basis, but unfortunately the choice of conservative was poor given the complete lack of qualifications and unnecessarily toxic public speech background. It's really worthwhile to vet your selections in advance to ensure they're not militant anarchists or antisemites or homophobes or anything else in their historical tweets or public speeches - regardless of their expert…

Maybe they thought that any conservative they pick is going to have a similar history but that her diversity ups would buy her a pass.