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

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#361

Post by meko » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 10:45 PM UTC

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…

Not all views are valid and should be tolerated or platformed, though. Assuming you disagree, I challenge you to argue against that without using what amounts to a slippery slope fallacy.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#362

Post by Mirioron » Sun, Apr 07, 2019, 5:02 AM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #158

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, thank you very much for posting. I don't know who Kelsey Piper is, but I feel it's exceedingly rare when I read something on Twitter that makes me come away feeling like I learned something at a deeper level. I'd encourage other folks to read the whole thread. It's not really mainly about Kay Cole James, more about how the whole panel looked like simply a PR exercise from the start, and I especially liked how…

Kelsey is frankly one of the best communicators I know. I was very glad to hear that she became a journalist because I've been a fan of her Tumblr[1] for years. [1] https://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/

I read her piece on the AlphaStar StarCraft 2 match and it was quite wrong. Even the basic idea that the AI crushed pro gamers while being more limited than humans was completely wrong. Anybody that has played the game even a bit saw that the AI did things that are physically impossible to do for a human. So, I'm not so sure about being one of the best communicators.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#363

Post by suppressingfire » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 8:24 AM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #71

smelendez wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is regional, though. I'm from New York and I've addressed groups of older female relatives as "you guys" without anyone batting an eye. In other parts of the country that's not common and people see "guys" as gendered, and people feel like you're forgetting they're there. The word "dude" as a form of address is gender neutral and business appropriate some places and not others. It's a hard problem: Y'all works s…

I've lived in the Rust Belt, the southeast, and California for big chunks of my life and you're right on about regionalisms. For language or social norms in general, all that matters is how something's taken, not what was meant by it. If I know that some phrase is really uncommon or has different shades of meaning in a different part of the country or a different part of the world, I also know that if I use that phra…

"you all" or "youse" can work as reasonable alternatives. I haven't tried "tons" since I've never actually heard it "used in anger."

One less fraught, but equally confusing terms are "a couple" vs. "a few" vs. "a handful" (some believe "couple" = 2 whereas others treat it and the others as explicitly more fuzzy). Often it's best to just assume as little context as possible and be a little more explicit and verbose.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#364

Post by suppressingfire » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 8:29 AM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #66

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?

I agree with you in principle, but what you are describing is a safe space in which all viewpoints can be voiced without judgement, and in which everyone has to politely sugarcoat major disagreements instead of "telling it like it is". I'm not disagreeing with you- that kind of environment can be nice and intellectually liberating in its own way, as long as it isn't a global setting. But that is what you're asking fo…

I tend to agree. While I find it painful to hear criticism when I inadvertently use words or phrases that are taken hurtfully, I nevertheless would prefer to be offered a wider perspective about how my words and actions are viewed so I can more clearly communicate in the future making fewer verbal blunders that detract from my point.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#365

Post by humanrebar » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 12:57 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #357

humanrebar wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?

Fascism is by definition extreme right. Communism is by definition extreme left. Reinterpreting history and meaning of words is a national sport now, especially when you can use "bad words" against your opponents but it's nice to use the appropriate words. Also, wanting free healthcare doesn't make you a communist, wanting market deregulation / more immigration control doesn't make you fascist. It's a bit like people…

For some (European) definitions of "right", maybe. In the U.S., reactionary thinking goes back to literal readings of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, though. From that perspective (maybe not your own but a prominent one), large government ideologies have more in common.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#366

Post by humanrebar » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 1:00 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #356

humanrebar wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?

They're both ideologically different and socially distinct groups, and for the middle of the 20th century were shooting at each other on that basis? Both labels have become extremely overused. Not every authoritarian is necessarily Fascist, calling everyone a Nazi isn't useful, nor is calling relatively mild redistributive processes or universal healthcare Communist.

This was basically my point as well. There are certainly better words to describe concerns, and the concerns are more bipartisan than is popularly appreciated.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#367

Post by lm28469 » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #365

lm28469 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascism is by definition extreme right. Communism is by definition extreme left. Reinterpreting history and meaning of words is a national sport now, especially when you can use "bad words" against your opponents but it's nice to use the appropriate words. Also, wanting free healthcare doesn't make you a communist, wanting market deregulation / more immigration control doesn't make you fascist. It's a bit like people…

For some (European) definitions of "right", maybe. In the U.S., reactionary thinking goes back to literal readings of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, though. From that perspective (maybe not your own but a prominent one), large government ideologies have more in common.

> In the U.S.

The US has never been under fascist or communist governments so their definitions of said movements don't really matter. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, Trump is just right wing with disputable opinions. Stalin and Mao were communists, AOC isn't even moderate left by communists standards.

Saying that Trump is fascist and AOC a communist is plain ridiculous.

Yes, fascism and communism do have, at least in the way they were implemented so far, things in common, but they're diametrically opposed. It's like saying you're a man AND a woman because men and women have 2 legs/arms and you do too.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#368

Post by humanrebar » Mon, Apr 08, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #367

humanrebar wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some (European) definitions of "right", maybe. In the U.S., reactionary thinking goes back to literal readings of the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, though. From that perspective (maybe not your own but a prominent one), large government ideologies have more in common.

> In the U.S. The US has never been under fascist or communist governments so their definitions of said movements don't really matter. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, Trump is just right wing with disputable opinions. Stalin and Mao were communists, AOC isn't even moderate left by communists standards. Saying that Trump is fascist and AOC a communist is plain ridiculous. Yes, fascism and communism do have, at lea…

I was saying fascism isn't the opposite of communism simply because the European right/left paradigm would map them on opposing sides of a spectrum. Other paradigms exist in which they have much in common.

One thing they have in common: being diametrically opposed to a lot of things.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#369

Post by fixermark » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 2:05 PM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #359

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…

> 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. It's a good thing that that's not what he said though. Good job on misrepresenting his view point. I find this misrepresentation particularly funny, because he was trying to help, because clearly…

A world built on completely unrestrained speech, surprisingly, is also a world built on fear. Counter-intuitive, but hypothetically: if a workplace has the freedom to openly declare that while they must act to comply with the law, they never voluntarily hire women because they believe women can't do the job as well as men? We have enough research to know the kind of hostile work environment that creates.

Absolutism in either direction is unacceptable; the particulars are debatable.

(... also: are you really equating the notion "homosexuals or transgendered people don't have fundamental differences that make them worse employees" with "women do have fundamental differences that make them worse employees?" I'm calling foul on your false equivalence.)

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#370

Post by fixermark » Tue, Apr 09, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #344

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…

It is not that people are concerned about being fired for expressing a politically-charged viewpoint, but rather expressing the wrong side of a politically-charged viewpoint.

That's the thing though---given the interface of the law to the question, there are right and wrong things to say and do if one wishes to keep one's job. Paul Graham wrote an essay about "What you can't say" related to this topic (http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html); he doesn't say anywhere in the essay that people who say the things you can't say don't suffer consequences. And the NLRB has made pretty clear that in Damore's case, he crossed a line.

We have an entire world of academia to debate issues that the private sector can't touch.