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

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#291

Post by raisedbyninjas » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #238

dangerface wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 chr…

The definition of murder changes with societies laws. Much of the prescribed killing in the Christian bible would be classified as murder today. Working on the sabbath for instance.

Successful religions follow the golden rule and the like. People don't need a religion to evaluate how their actions impact others.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#292

Post by tree_of_item » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

yesofcourse wrote: post #286

tree_of_item wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The text of the tweet: > Today @heritage will critique gender identity @UN_CSW because powerful nations are pressing for the radical redefining of sex. If they can change the definition of women to include men, they can erase efforts to empower women economically, socially, and politically. #CSW63 That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist", or that they should be harmed in any way, or that they…

> That tweet does not say anything like "trans people don't exist" It advocates "critiquing gender identity," which I take to mean asserting that gender identity is either not real or not important. Gender identity is the defining characteristic of trans people, so when someone critiques it as a concept, that implies that they think trans identities are made up, possibly for some insidious purpose, ie. that trans peo…

I'll reply to the most salient point:

> This tweet says nothing of the sort, nor would I expect it to, as no one in the history of the world has ever suggested the contrary.

This is actually a primary claim of transactivists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S0e-i117vY

This video contains at least one lawyer from the ACLU, Chase Strangio, claiming that there is no such thing as a "male body" or "female body". They absolutely are against the idea of sexual dimorphism. This video is accompanied by many other articles all arguing that transwomen are "female" because they say so, and therefore should be allowed in women's sex segregated spaces, sports etc.

Since "respecting the identities of trans people" is a euphemism for "deny the existence of biological sex", I'm happy to be called a bigot.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#293

Post by kuzehanka » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #283

kuzehanka wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? This sounds like you think we need to serialize helping marginalized groups. Was that the intent?

I'd like to understand the priority order I guess? By all metrics the homeless population is in far more need of attention than the trans community for example.

I'm totally okay with that particular poster continuing to focus on the trans community because of their own personal agenda, but pretending that they represent inclusion or fairness is an outright lie at that point.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#294

Post by fixermark » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

Veelox wrote: post #287

fixermark wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

I would agree that Damore is not a Shining White Knight of Truth. His actions since being fired are questionable. That said, in most of the Damore discussion I got a sense that there was a "right answer" to most of the questions he posed. >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 th…

To be honest, I am sad to say I have yet to meet a gay person for whom that advice would be necessary or helpful, as they already know; the tradeoff between fitting in and expressing one's inner life openly is something those I've met are depressingly familiar with. :( It's other people (who I hypothesize without evidence perhaps thought the 4chan "rules of the road" applied to the rest of the world) who are finding things work counter to their expectations.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#295

Post by tertius » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:00 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #273

tertius wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Possible yes. Many things are possible.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#296

Post by UncleMeat » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

educationdata wrote: post #70

geofft wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My sources at Google just couldn't see the panelists constructively working together on a panel at this point. Well, that's the point, isn't it? If the AI ethics council is meeting four times a year for a couple hours at most, and and has people who can't even agree on "Which bathroom should this person use," how are they going to produce productive advice for actual hard questions that haven't been well-explored?…

Is "Which bathroom should this person use" an easy question? If it is really easy, why it is so controversial? You may think it is an easy question, in reality it is an actual hard question.

"Should we own slaves?" is an easy question. Yet it was so controversial there was a civil war fought over it. "Is global warming caused by humans?" is an easy question (with the data we have) but it is massively controversial.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#297

Post by zimpenfish » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #115

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?

She was chosen for a position that does nothing but comment and publish views on issues. So yes. This seems to be strange obsession of HN: people excusing (with words) the worst possible statements (words), because „words are not actions“ or „words have no meaning“.

> This seems to be strange obsession of HN

Because they want to be able to use whatever words they want without consequence? Yet they insist on posting somewhere that does have consequences for word usage - downvotes, flagging, and bans. You'd think they'd all go to a freer platform.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#298

Post by yesofcourse » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #268

yesofcourse wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario.

I suspect that you're only willing to say that because, at the moment, nazis are not anywhere close to being in a position to carry out any of their promises. Let's imagine that 30% of the general population agreed with this person's views, but that they were highly unpopular among educated people and had little influence in certain institutions, such as Google. Would you still be shrugging your shoulders and saying that it was worth it to have a diversity of opinion, or would you be scared, and willing to do anything you could to prevent this person and their views from having any more influence?

> 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.

Hmm… I didn't think there was much of a chance of this council producing anything of value to begin with, so I basically just saw it as a minor endorsement of a small group of people. Maybe my opinion on this matter would be different if I were more concerned about AI and thought that there was meaningful progress to be made by such a group.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#299

Post by TheDong » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #151

TheDong wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if we want sex-segregated bathrooms then there's little point if people can just randomly change their mind about which category they belong to. What's the point of categories then? Categories do not need to be immutable. There are meetups for bikers and redditors and many other categories which anyone may self-identify as belonging to. These people prefer to think of themselves as belonging within those catego…

> Categories do not need to be immutable. I agree, but you have to ask yourself, what purpose do the categories serve. It seems to me that th epurpose of sex-segregated bathrooms is two-fold: (1) to make people feel more comfortable, because many have weird hangups regarding intimacy and sex, and (2) to keep women safe. Even disregarding (2), it seems to be a choice between inconveniencing a tiny proportion of the po…

We could talk in circles about the details here. The fact of the matter is that those who harass others in bathrooms are already criminals (regardless of gender), and trans people are not overrepresented in those statistics at all, so it's a strawman to imply otherwise.

The fundamental difference that will not allow us to converse well here is that you are intentionally not accepting that a trans person is the gender they have transitioned to.

It's clear that's the case from, for example, you saying "to keep women safe" and very obviously not including trans women in that group. Trans women are women and also deserve to use the bathroom where they will feel safer.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#300

Post by minkzilla » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #253

kaitai wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's religion, personally, because in Christianity for instance you see the pro-lifers and the people at the border protesting to give refuge to Honduran asylum-seekers in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and they often seem to have essentially no common ground, frankly. On a personal level they do, but on a political level, nah.

Ah but I'm not arguing that this dispute is religious in nature or that religious people all agree (the bible has nothing to say on the topic of mass immigration anyway, AFAIK). Rather that the people protesting for or against something because of their religious views are much less likely to suddenly change those views or crumble in the face of pressure from opposing activists. They have some sort of concrete belief…

Exodus is the story of a mass immigration