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

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#201

Post by learnstats2 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #149

This is a shameful situation. We need to all wake up and take a step back and realize what's happening here: increasingly you can't have a conversation about one issue unless you are a hundred percent pure in the eyes of a frankly self-proclaimed judge jury and executioner for 100% of your other views. I am of the left myself but on a meta-level what we're doing is essentially making it impossible to ever find middle…

Isn't the start point of an ethics board "don't seek to remove rights from an entire demographic of people"?

As such, the board would seem to be corrupted if it has people openly working towards that goal. Good that Google has agreed.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#202

Post by dqpb » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:08 PM UTC

toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #11

itg wrote: post #7

Why can’t leadership at Google stand by any of their decisions, instead of caving in to the demands of a small yet vocal group of people.

They stand up to all sorts of things when their bottom line is at stake, see AMP. When it comes to things they never cared about to begin with though, they fold like a cheap suit.

Do cheap suits fold easier than expensive suits?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#203

Post by caconym_ » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:09 PM UTC

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…

I mean, on the face of it an "AI ethics council" sponsored by (?) Google has the potential to make some fairly far-reaching decisions.

> then the one individual that comes to your mind will use exactly that to completely undermine the entire council.

He'll do it anyway. "Wind turbines cause cancer," etcetera. If we start toadying to the anti-intellectual bent of modern "conservatism", we've already lost, and we should just turn on Fox News and wait to die.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#204

Post by winchling » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:10 PM UTC

kuzehanka wrote: post #152

redwood wrote: post #149

This is a shameful situation. We need to all wake up and take a step back and realize what's happening here: increasingly you can't have a conversation about one issue unless you are a hundred percent pure in the eyes of a frankly self-proclaimed judge jury and executioner for 100% of your other views. I am of the left myself but on a meta-level what we're doing is essentially making it impossible to ever find middle…

You articulated so well what I've been observing. With the widening political divide, we find ourselves in this weird situation where any decision makers are swarmed with moral outrage attacks unless they're the bastions of politically correct ideology. An increasing number of topics are taboo because merely opening up a discussion around them summons the moral outrage army. Moral outrage has become most effective so…

>I don't know how we got here, it's a bit scary.

I think we got here because of telecommunications and the internet. The world is joining up and a nascent collective mind is emerging. Like the individual mind it has a set of ideas about who it is and what it should be doing, a.k.a. an 'ego'. Many potential thoughts in a normal mind are continually being censored/suppressed because they do not conform to those fixed ideas. Something similar is happening on a larger scale.

However just as there is hope for the individual in the form of spiritual awakening there's hope for the world too. The form it would take is unknowable for now. If it resembled a religious revival then I guess it would have to be a new and rather different kind of religion. Where might militant atheists and religious fundamentalists find common ground? Presumably within the new fields of consciousness and AGI research. Though I doubt they'll like it much, at least to begin with...

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#205

Post by fixermark » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:10 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #37

I don't get why Google caves to pressure from internal activism. Only 2000 of 98000 employees signed the letter. And they are themselves a very skewed cohort, unrepresentative of the general population of customers Google has.

Google hires people they intend never to fire. Losing 2,000 employees would be pretty damaging to the company. Another concern is the impact that losing 2,000 activist employees would have on their growth plans, because they hire from colleges and colleges tend to generate candidates that believe such activism is a good thing.

They're not a traditional company in a couple of ways.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#206

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #194

kuzehanka wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You articulated so well what I've been observing. With the widening political divide, we find ourselves in this weird situation where any decision makers are swarmed with moral outrage attacks unless they're the bastions of politically correct ideology. An increasing number of topics are taboo because merely opening up a discussion around them summons the moral outrage army. Moral outrage has become most effective so…

I'm underwhelmed. In this specific example, the individual in question could've gotten out ahead of the press cycle and explained herself. That she didn't means the beliefs she holds as reported probably are her beliefs, and yeah---that's unacceptable for this role. This isn't thoughtless litmus-testing; this is "Google has a track record of errors regarding its trans userbase and is a company that specifically wants…

[deleted]

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#207

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #174

empath75 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think it’s possible or desirable to find common ground with fascists, personally.

Case in point though: People need to be able to communicate, so don't downvote him.

> Case in point though: People need to be able to communicate, so don't downvote him.

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." A political group who advocates deplatforming as a means of quashing "wrong" opinions has no right to complain when their own opinions are deplatformed by the public.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#208

Post by linuxftw » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:16 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #149

This is a shameful situation. We need to all wake up and take a step back and realize what's happening here: increasingly you can't have a conversation about one issue unless you are a hundred percent pure in the eyes of a frankly self-proclaimed judge jury and executioner for 100% of your other views. I am of the left myself but on a meta-level what we're doing is essentially making it impossible to ever find middle…

> This is a dangerous trend for all of us because it makes it impossible find common ground in an open democracy even if half the country in our eyes have essentially deplorable views, we need to recognize that they feel the same about us and then it's simply not constructive to be unable to find common ground.

Don't view political impasse as a problem. Indeed, it's the only thing that will lead to the eventual dismantle of the federal system we have today. Why do we need a super-state?

We must decentralize authority. Don't try to save democracy, let it fail under it's on weight as all democracies do.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#209

Post by kuzehanka » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:17 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #194

kuzehanka wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You articulated so well what I've been observing. With the widening political divide, we find ourselves in this weird situation where any decision makers are swarmed with moral outrage attacks unless they're the bastions of politically correct ideology. An increasing number of topics are taboo because merely opening up a discussion around them summons the moral outrage army. Moral outrage has become most effective so…

I'm underwhelmed. In this specific example, the individual in question could've gotten out ahead of the press cycle and explained herself. That she didn't means the beliefs she holds as reported probably are her beliefs, and yeah---that's unacceptable for this role. This isn't thoughtless litmus-testing; this is "Google has a track record of errors regarding its trans userbase and is a company that specifically wants…

>If she doesn't see trans people as valid, she's the wrong fit for the role.

Surely you can see how that generalises to 'if doesn't hold then they're not fit to make decisions' and that you're basically demonstrating exactly what's being discussed?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#210

Post by linuxftw » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

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?

It's a tool of control, nothing more. Being guilty of wrong-think is enough to get you blackballed in the tech world. Never mind the goal posts are continually moving.