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

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#271

Post by 0x262d » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:17 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…

ooh my god this is such an embarrassing position on this. they had someone from the heritage foundation. stop buying in to the bloviation about free speech for the heritage foundation. I have no common ground with them.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#272

Post by fixermark » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:18 PM UTC

Veelox wrote: post #265

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…

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), poli…

I'd personally be really cautious about making the mistake of conflating Damore with other topics. Damore, in particular, was fired legally because there are, in fact, some topics not up for discussion (https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-...). Companies aren't legally free to entertain the question "Maybe women can't be as good at computer engineering as men" without running very quickly into established law that prevents acting as if that hypothesis were true.

(Damore's also a bad example for supporting the hypothesis that holding wrong opinions bans you from discourse, because it appears he's been pretty vocal about his opinions since Google let him go).

If a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a politically-charged viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free. Making the decision that one's viewpoint is more important than the job is always a decision one is free to make.

I don't know why this thought is so scary to some people. I hypothesize that they're too accustom to operating in a pseudonymous consequence-free world where you can say whatever you want without social censure or personal ramifications, but that's not how most of the world works, and the advent of the Internet didn't change that fact.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#273

Post by Chris2048 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #244

Chris2048 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what is non-partisan? Do you believe there are more than two genders, or not? you either answer a question like that, or don't. If you don't answer, people don't know your opinion, thus you are "non-partisan" via ambiguity.

A group as a whole can be non-partisan. But a group that is composed of only a small sliver of thought and thus not representative will most definitely be partisan, as a whole.

Ah, non-partisan as a group property, not as an individual property.

But then it's possible it was a non-partisan group then

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#274

Post by Veelox » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

everdev wrote: post #42

This article is a little light on details, but there's a more in depth article here: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/4/18295933/google-... The initial complaint was around comments from 1 of the 8 board members: Kay Coles James The complaint was published Apr. 1 in a Medium post: https://medium.com/@against.transphobia/googlers-against-tra... As evidence the post lists 3 tweets from Kay Cole James: https://…

I would just like to provide my outlook.

tweet 1: Against the Equality Act which would have made sexual orientation and gender identity federally protected classes using standard right wing talking points.

tweet 2: Promoting Heritage foundations critique of gender identify at the UN using standard right wing talking points.

tweet 3: (linked below) Support for the border wall using standard right wing talking points.

It really seems like she is getting hammered for being mainstream conservative. I understand the critiques about her not being technically qualified to understand the AI ethics issues. The idea that if you disagree with current transgender talking point you are not allow to work with Google in a public capacity seems extreme.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#275

Post by GoblinSlayer » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:20 PM UTC

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…

>Where might militant atheists and religious fundamentalists find common ground?

Postmodern atheism and postmodern theism converge.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#276

Post by Veelox » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:21 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #118

ehsankia wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The are opinions that I would vehemently disagree with, yet not consider illegitimate. The Catholic Church, for example, does and says all sorts of horrible shit. Yet they have a rich intellectual history, are somewhat consistent (i. e. against abortion and also against the death penalty), and for better or worse represent a sizable portion of the population. This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-fri…

>This person was peddling in ludicrous Obama-killed-his-friend conspiracy theories.

Can I get a link to what you are talking about? You are very clearly referencing something but I have no idea what it is.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#277

Post by kuzehanka » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #267

rmah wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you care only about transgender people? There are hundreds of larger groups which face far more severe marginalisation in society. Trans people have a net positive social status where they are actively sought by employers. Isn't it time to move on to helping other minorities?

Looking at your comments here, it's starting to look like you have a singular agenda will just support whatever larger movement best aligns to it without considering the moral or fairness implications. Nothing wrong with that I guess, but that is the antithesis of inclusiveness or ethics.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#278

Post by jdavis703 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:23 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 has always been the case, there have always been purity tests. When was the last time a Democratic presidential candidate ran on an anti-abortion campaign or a Republican ran on a tax hike campaign?

What’s fairly recent is that millions of us now have the potential to reach millions of people with our social media posts. My Tweets get more views than when I wrote for my college newspaper 10 years ago! So of course if I wind up writing or saying something that a majority of people disagree it will cause me problems.

My options are to either not write and say controversial things (or at least not under my name) or to just deal with being in a contrarian position.

The great thing about expressing opinions is it’s optional. People who are women or gender non-conforming, racial minorities, homosexual or disabled have no way of changing their position in life so we protect them. Controversial opinions and beliefs? Those are easy to mask or change.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#279

Post by fixermark » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

kuzehanka wrote: post #277

fixermark wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you care only about transgender people? There are hundreds of larger groups which face far more severe marginalisation in society. Trans people have a net positive social status where they are actively sought by employers. Isn't it time to move on to helping other minorities? Looking at your comments here, it's starting to look like you have a singular agenda will just support whatever larger movement best ali…

"Whataboutism" is a common way to derail a topic and, carried to its limit, suggests that all action is equally futile because there's always some more worthy cause.

I have transgender, transsexual, and transvestite friends who I care deeply about. That's absolutely true. I want the world to be more welcoming to them, because I see the disapproval society heaps upon them as sitting at one of those particular intersections of unfair and unnecessary. If you have groups you also care deeply about, feel free to share.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#280

Post by Veelox » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #215

Veen wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you set up a spectrum and seem reasonable so I would like to know where on your above spectrum of acceptable to not allowed to "influence the public discourse". As a predicate, say I have a professional history of interacting with folks with diverse racial, gender, LGBT+, backgrounds. If I believe the below things, where on the spectrum would I fall?

1) I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border. 2) I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. 3) I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity. 4) I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.