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

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#261

Post by winchling » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #164

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…

What I find especially sad is I am a total believer in political correctness as a general courtesy to people and I think it's the right thing to do. However by simply sharing my upthread viewpoint that we need to be careful about this meta-trend I will probably be lumped in as one of these dark web right wing types even though it couldn't be further from the truth.

>I am a total believer in political correctness as a general courtesy to people

What about in private, among a group of friends? Should the degree of correctness be uniform or proportional to the size of the audience?

It seems to me that the purpose of the ethics board is to allow a company to be left alone to get on with its private ethically-laden research. It needs to be seen to be ethically responsible and nowadays that requires ultra-political correctness because more people than ever are watching.

But this is incompatible with having actual ethics discussions which require diversity of opinion.

So there's a dilemma: trying to be ethical versus trying to be seen to be ethical.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#262

Post by SkyBelow » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:02 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #246

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…

People in this thread don't seem to get this goes both ways. Dear Hackernews, you are arguing with others who think banning people for different opinions is fine, but also downvoting and flagging them at the same time. Nothing to see here :)

I think putting people in cages is unacceptable. But I'm okay with putting people in cages if they were caught putting people in cages. So back to my first statement, I think putting people in cages is unacceptable, as long as they haven't met the criteria by which I find it acceptable.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#263

Post by rmah » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:04 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…

What does it even mean to "see trans people as valid"? What does it mean to see X group of people as valid or invalid? Honestly, I don't understand this statement.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#264

Post by BeetleB » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #259

BeetleB wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Here are their descriptions from Google's initial announcement: • Alessandro Acquisti, a leading behavioral economist and privacy researcher. He’s a Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy at the Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University and the PwC William W. Cooper Professor of Risk and Regulatory Innovation. • Bubacarr Bah, an expert in applied and computational mathematics. He’s a Senior Researcher,…

And tying this back to the journalist:

>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.

Is this true for any other board members? Have journalists been focusing only on Kay, or did they do due diligence into the others?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#265

Post by Veelox » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:07 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…

To put the point user redwood made differently. There is a trend that certain questions have a "right answer" and if you don't believe the "right answer" it is okay to bar you from any and all discourse.

While you might think "Trans rights are worth the sacrifice" the general trend in tech is that there is a "right answer" to same-sex marriage (Brendan Eich), biological differences between gender (James Damore), politics (all the flake Peter Thiel got for supporting Trump) and now trans rights. This trend is worrying because it shuts down discussion.

It is also alienating because if you disagree with one of the "right answers" you can get fired for it, which seems kind of counter to the narrative of diversity and inclusion. This is why you sometimes hear people voice the criticism of "diversity in everything but thought"

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#266

Post by piokoch » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:11 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…

Exactly. One more thing: the fight between minorities and minorities within minorities leads to nowhere. People forgot (and media, social networks only helped here in the negative sense), that each of a us is an unique human being and should be considered like that, not as a member of some sexual preferences group or race or whatever other group. This only divides people.

It is worth to note that Ray Bradbury described exactly that what we witness now in his "Fahrenheit 451" (written more than 60 years ago). The fight between minorities dumbed-down any substantial discussion. Everything that could hurt any minority was burnt and forbidden and people were left with nothing but stupid soap operas about nothing.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#267

Post by fixermark » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

rmah wrote: post #263

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…

What does it even mean to "see trans people as valid"? What does it mean to see X group of people as valid or invalid? Honestly, I don't understand this statement.

I'm speaking loosely, but by "valid" here I just mean "a full person with human dignity and value." James' Heritage Foundation has come out strongly in favor of the Trump administration's attempts to ban transgender people from military service, which is somewhat incompatible with the view that transgender people are valid.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#268

Post by bzbarsky » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

yesofcourse wrote: post #120

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 t…

I'm Jewish. I would not in fact be up in arms if your hypothetical person were on an AI ethics council, if I felt they might have useful things to contribute outside the context of "the Jewish Question". I suspect I would personally be happier if people could be found who could offer similar contributions without that particular viewpoint, but "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario.

Now if the council had multiple people like you describe, or worse yet a majority of them, then I would certainly be up in arms, yes. Just like I would be up in arms if a majority of such a council held _any_ extreme-by-society's-standards position (Greenpeace member, orthodox Jew, Catholic priest, Communist party member, hard libertarian, etc, etc). From my point of view, the most dangerous failure mode for an AI ethics council is groupthink that leads them to not notice problems that should get noticed. If the council is set up right, it should not require unanimity, or even a majority to flag something as an issue.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#269

Post by fixermark » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

cbracken wrote: post #242

fixermark wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you apply the point-of-view that etiquette is what the unethical use to keep their unethical practices under-questioned.

That seems to imply an assumption of lack of good faith, unless I’m misinterpreting what you’re saying. While there’s no doubt that one can find cases to which this applies, I’d think that applying that broadly to the vast majority of people who are arguing in good faith would stifle debate.

I think you're taking as assumption that the vast majority of people are arguing in good faith, and many are no longer willing to take on that assumption without evidence.

Given what has been seen regarding both 4chan psychological operations and Russian intelligence operations on major message boards, I can see the vantage point where it's fair to not treat good faith as assumable.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#270

Post by Chris2048 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

kaolti wrote: post #241

Chris2048 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will, just in light grey; and they'll also see its not an acceptable argument.

It's flagged now...

I don't agree with flagging, there's no point unless there is an urgent need to remove a post.