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

231–240 of 373 posts

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#231

Post by max76 »

trentnix wrote: post #230
repolfx wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everyone worships something. You can worship deity, the State, or yourself. Those working tirelessly to shut down contrary thoughts and opinions and playing semantics games are doing so with a religious fervor and to redefine social norms to their own worldview.

> Everyone worships something.

I don’t think someone following the tenets of Buddhism would worship anything. Correct if me I’m wrong.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#232

Post by BeetleB »

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…

>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,

I call this the "I can't understand why X behaves like this, so the reason must be..." In other words, from complete uncertainty arises certainty.

The reason could be simpler. It could be that she doesn't believe she has to justify every aspect of her existence for a role where it likely doesn't matter. I sure as hell wouldn't discuss my views on classes of people or climate change for a position that requires a stretch of the imagination to be tied to these topics.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#233

Post by dangerface »

repolfx wrote: post #218
winchling wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Religion helps answer the question "how must I act" in a thorough and formalised way

Most religions condone murder in the name of their "religion", this is not how people should act.

Most religions teach their "morals" with parables that can be interpreted in different ways, not what I would call formalised or thorough.

The fact that christianity is so divided while claiming to believe the same thing should be all the proof you need of this, and its not just christianity.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#234

Post by rjf72 »

kevingadd wrote: post #121
rjf72 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue with this view is that such petitions tend to be spread with near perfect coverage. So only 2,000 people out of 98,000 signing does generally mean that the other 96,000 are more likely to be opposed/neutral to the 2000. And the current culture of Google such that openly expressing support for a panel that includes genuinely diverse ideological views is something that could have consequences. As one interest…

This is a pretty weird take. The sort of petitions you're talking about are not widely spread with remotely perfect coverage at companies like Google or Microsoft, there's no allowed way to distribute these via company-wide email or something and people are distributed globally across campuses and timezones. Personally at both workplaces I have never seen any of these petitions or open letters that make the news cros…

This is inaccurate in a very ironic way. Not only are individuals specifically guaranteed the right to organize and discuss conditions/etc of work via company email [1], but this is a right that Google has been actively lobbying to rescind following the recent walkout that was organized largely by company email. [2] This right was specifically clarified/ensured by the NLRB in 2014.

[1] - https://www.littler.com/nlrb-creates-right-use-corporate-e-m...

[2] - https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2019/01/google-doesnt...

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#235

Post by BeetleB »

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…

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

That's what other members of the board are there for. Let's flip your question: How do you expect a tech person to comment reasonably about AI ethics when all they've taken is an undergrad course in philosophy (and even that may be a stretch).

The notion that a person on the board must be an expert in every aspect involved is ridiculous.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#236

Post by BeetleB »

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…

>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.

What about all the other board members?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#237

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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…

Guess what Greeks knew it too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#238

Post by repolfx »

dangerface wrote: post #233
repolfx wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Religion helps answer the question "how must I act" in a thorough and formalised way Most religions condone murder in the name of their "religion", this is not how people should act. Most religions teach their "morals" with parables that can be interpreted in different ways, not what I would call formalised or thorough. The fact that christianity is so divided while claiming to believe the same thing should be all…

Do they? The 5th commandment is "thou shalt not murder".

Parables: yes, that's certainly true. But can you create an adaptable moral framework without a lot of ambiguity? Even the law is ambiguous and it's far too large for the widespread adoption a moral framework requires.

The fact that christianity is so divided while claiming to believe the same thing should be all the proof you need of this, and its not just christianity.

There are a billion different religions when you break them down, but, they all agree on the basics. Every branch of Christianity agrees with principles like "thou shalt not murder", "feeding the poor is virtuous", "love thy neighbour", "care for the sick" etc.

I'm not saying Christianity is an awesome moral framework mind you. That's not my argument. My argument is that the vast majority of people no longer have any framework that guides them in how to act. When faced with the outrage of people who do, they crumble as a consequence.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#239

Post by BeetleB »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #143
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.

Strange, I consider "guys" to be gender neutral. Presumably "guys and gals" would be offensive to non-binary folk? So what's the acceptable format? "guys, gals, and... others?"

>So what's the acceptable format? "guys, gals, and... others?"

Folks,...

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#240

Post by fixermark »

BeetleB wrote: post #232
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…

>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, I call this the "I can't understand why X behaves like this, so the reason must be..." In other words, from complete uncertainty arises certainty. The reason could be simpler. It could be that she doesn't believe she…

These topics matter for a Google AI board. Google uses machine learning for information classification and filtering, and they've had issues in the past with over-broad or misapplication.

"Why Has 'Transgender' Become a Trigger Word For YouTube?" [https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-has-transgender-become-a-t...]

Having someone on the board that is starting from a premise of "That outcome is fine" runs counter to Google's existing stance on the topic.

Post reply on HN