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

211–220 of 373 posts

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#211

Post by fixermark »

kuzehanka wrote: post #209
fixermark wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, because not all ethical view points are equivalent or interchangeable. And we're not talking about any old ethics board, we're talking about an ethics board at Google, which goes out of its way to be trans inclusive.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#212

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

> that's unacceptable for this role

Do we really need to play facts opinion?

In a discussion about ethics you include as many viewpoints possible or it become dishonest immediately.

You are not a priest or something like that. It has taken too long to accept premised authority.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#213

Post by kuzehanka »

fixermark wrote: post #211
kuzehanka wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

No, because not all ethical view points are equivalent or interchangeable. And we're not talking about any old ethics board, we're talking about an ethics board at Google, which goes out of its way to be trans inclusive.

Thank you for your candid answer.

Can we then sum up your stance in two statements:

1: not all ethics viewpoints are equal, and yours are superior

2: in this instance, you believe that the above opposed viewpoint does not deserve any representation at an ethics board, even if it is represents a significant population of the US and the world?

Is that correct? This is your stance?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#214

Post by fixermark »

raxxorrax wrote: post #212
fixermark wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> that's unacceptable for this role Do we really need to play facts opinion? In a discussion about ethics you include as many viewpoints possible or it become dishonest immediately. You are not a priest or something like that. It has taken too long to accept premised authority.

my opinion on this topic is irrelevant. But Google's opinion on who is on Google's AI ethics board matters very much, and it appears some things are settled questions for Google. Such as the humanity and dignity of trans individuals.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#215

Post by caconym_ »

Veen wrote: post #132
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…

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.

> conservative thinkers may have important contributions to make to ethical debates around technology and AI.

"Conservative" is a word that has become overloaded. Same with "liberal". In fact progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal are orthogonal axes. I don't have a problem with conservatism, per se—I have a problem with illiberalism, and that's what's on display here.

On an abstract level I think "diversity of thought" (can't believe I'm using those words) is necessary in talking about the ethics of applying new technologies. E.g. human cloning: what are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? If everybody in the discussion is on the same side, the result won't be useful, and I totally agree that someone with intellectual integrity, who identifies with traditional conservative principles, could have a lot of value to bring to the table in that situation.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the "homosexuality is a slippery slope to bestiality" and "men have penises, women have vaginas, GET OVER IT!!! LOL " crowd. Frankly, no, I don't think those people have anything of value to add, and I don't think we should allow those who indulge them to influence the public discourse. Of course, that horse has left the barn.

There is a middle ground, and I think this woman falls there. I think the highlighted tweets show that she has opinions on social issues that have been shaped by toxic identity politics and demagoguery. I personally judge her poorly for that but I'm not ready to make an overall judgment because those three tweets are all I know about her. I don't think there is anybody who has never said something they regret (of course, I doubt she regrets saying these things, but you get the point).

FWIW I think "the left" goes too far in their reaction to things like this. My comment was more meant to address the general oppression complex "conservatives" have over the "diversity of thought" issue.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#216

Post by fixermark »

kuzehanka wrote: post #213
fixermark wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because not all ethical view points are equivalent or interchangeable. And we're not talking about any old ethics board, we're talking about an ethics board at Google, which goes out of its way to be trans inclusive.

Thank you for your candid answer. Can we then sum up your stance in two statements: 1: not all ethics viewpoints are equal, and yours are superior 2: in this instance, you believe that the above opposed viewpoint does not deserve any representation at an ethics board, even if it is represents a significant population of the US and the world? Is that correct? This is your stance?

I think you're confusing my personal viewpoint with my observation on what Google appears to have done in this specific context.

But for what it's worth, in the specific question of trans individuals, my personal view point is that majorities have been wrong before, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't be wrong again. This is one of those times. Trans exclusionism doesn't pass the "Do not ban that which is not harmful to others" sniff test for freedom-oriented society.

But again, my personal viewpoint doesn't rule the Google corporation's decisions. However, we shouldn't be surprised when a company that has positioned itself to be clearly trans-inclusive doesn't find somebody who denies the dignity of trans people acceptable on their ethics board.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#217

Post by swish_bob »

michaelt wrote: post #155
matt4077 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See, that exact example is why I look askew at a lot of the field of 'AI ethics' I mean, human drivers' education doesn't cover choosing who to kill in unavoidable crashes. Isn't that because we believe crashes where the driver can't avoid the crash, but can choose who to kill, are so rare as to be negligible? IMHO much more realistic and pressing AI ethics questions surround e.g. neural networks for setting insuranc…

I don't know about you, but my driving instructor talked to me about when not to perform emergency braking/evasion manoeuvres when I was learning. And about how to choose between emergency responses.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#218

Post by repolfx »

winchling wrote: post #204
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 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 i…

I'm not sure it's anything to do with the internet. A lot of this stuff is taking place offline - shouting people down at lectures and things like that.

My own theory is it's due to the decline of religion. I say that as a non religious person who has lately started wondering if I'm so right to be that way (I never used to question the righteousness of scientific atheism).

Religion can be defined as a moral framework. We have agency and we must act. Religion helps answer the question "how must I act" in a thorough and formalised way: it tells us what right and wrong is, and it does so from a position of pseudo-authority (God says it, so it must be moral).

The common thread between all these conservatives-get-censored stories we're seeing is that leadership, whether it be corporate political or academic, is staggeringly weak in the face of moral outrage. Even when that outrage is coming from people who are barely adults, people far more senior and more experienced than them fold immediately - even if they actually disagree.

I think this is because without any kind of rigorous moral framework, people don't have any footing on which to push back. Someone pops up and says "that person is the devil because they don't respect women" or whatever, and maybe that's a total pastiche of their position but it's a position anchored in the moral framework of identity politics/femininism. Without any equivalent grounding in an alternative moral framework, the leadership doesn't know how to respond, they are desperate to see themselves as a "good person" and so they're left scrambling to obey the demands of the assembled mob. If they already felt like they were good people, they'd be much more capable of resisting such attacks.

Organised religion crops up in every human society throughout history except this one - I believe we're really the first to be widely atheist. But it seems all we've done is replace one set of gods with another: now instead of worshipping invisible deities of peace, love, war, etc, we worship at the deities of minority intersections ... and crusade against heretics who deny the sanctity of that worship.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#219

Post by kaolti »

Chris2048 wrote: post #181
kaolti wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You think by throwing around labels he want two-way communication?

You missed it. Doesn't matter how wrong he might be, people need to see what everyone has to say. It's not for him, it's for others.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#220

Post by geofft »

alkibiades wrote: post #50
Pfhreak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gr…

sure and what if 20 percent feel strongly the opposite way but cant say anything or else they will be bullied by the 1 pct and called bigots and fired like damore? I'm sure 1 pct of people are white supremacists but we don't listen to them just because they whinge

Well, why don't you listen to white supremacists? There are a number of them in America, and they certainly feel aggrieved. Shouldn't they have a seat at the table, to support diversity of viewpoint? What if they've got some points?

Perhaps you know already that the white supremacists are wrong, no matter how many of them there are?

This is the fundamental meta-question of appointing an ethics committee: you have to have some idea, already, of what is ethical. That idea could be—but probably isn't—to follow the world around you in proportion to their beliefs. That idea almost certainly is to follow your own existing sense of right and wrong. You want to find people who seem better at you than reasoning but the same as you in ultimate values. You want people who are going in the same direction you are, just better at getting there.

Post reply on HN