Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 460 posts

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#261

Post by free_rms »

thu2111 wrote: post #221
panpanna wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically Gebru was fired for turning Googles fake ethics group into a real ethics group?

Her paper didn't make any reasonable points about real ethics, it was mostly wafer thin pseudo-intellectual moralising of the form "but what about the trees!" without any attempt at rigorous cost/benefit analysis. At its core ethics is about balances and tradeoffs: something creates some problems for one person, but creates some benefits for another person, is it moral? Is it right? As a consequence her paper made a…

It's fascinating how nobody can say how this paper was such an ethical stab in the heart for Google, it's all about process.

The paper's out there! You can read it!

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#263

Post by baron_harkonnen »

googlethrow3134 wrote: post #216
panpanna wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically Gebru was fired for turning Googles fake ethics group into a real ethics group?

She wasn’t fired for trying to publish the paper. She threatened to resign if her demands were met, so Google pre-empted it by accepting her resignation. The narrative around her being “fired” is completely false and is a lie that needs to be stopped in its track.

So do you honestly believe that if Gebru were to interview at another company and they performed a background check asking why her last position was terminated if she put "voluntary" it would come back with no problems?

Do you likewise honestly think that if she applied for unemployment services in the US should we be denied because of willful termination from her last job?

Everyone I know who has been fired, when it's reported to the company, the phrasing is always "Person X and the company have come to a mutual agreement", but in my experience it's never really mutual.

I've known many coworkers that threaten to quit over issues, but it still depends on them making that choice formally. Otherwise they are fired.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#264

Post by pron »

throwaway316943 wrote: post #257
pron wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the honourable thing be to first try to change how Google behaves and only if unsuccessful resign? Why is the assumption that employees shouldn't even try to influence the direction of their company? Why is doing so considered a tantrum?

There is a huge difference between skillfully navigating the internal politics and procedures of a company vs issuing demands based on flimsy evidence/feelings and threatening to take your toys and go home if you don’t get your way (and then throwing a social media tantrum when they call your bluff and accept your resignation).

Sure, and maybe they misjudged their power and overplayed their hand, but why is it that the law is the only guidance for management while employees are held up to a higher standard? If management can do anything as long as it's legal, so can the workers.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#265

Post by coward8675309 »

pron wrote: post #217
pontus wrote: post #99

My god, people need to calm down. I understand that some may be upset about things their employer does and that's well within their rights. If their employer is knowingly engaging in illegal activity then by all means, be a whistle blower and set ultimatums, but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interv…

> but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interviews and leave the company! Why? It might be true that in the US the system is such that corporations are the property of their shareholders to do with as they please within the law, but that is a construct of a specific political process (e.g. [1]), and a…

This makes no sense to me. If you don't believe in the raison d'être of a company, you should not join the company. There is no need to delve deeply into competing theories of the corporation. I'm willing to bet that even over in Europe, Ruger, Sig, Glock, Walther, and Beretta don't have a ton of gadflies on staff who are paid to write papers calling for the outlaw of handguns.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#266

Post by bonoboTP »

bzb6 wrote: post #252
bonoboTP wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's Eritrean-born and identifies as Black. Races aren't an exact science but social constructs. There's a gradual continuum in people's appearance along geographical areas, linking Sub-Saharan west Africa where most slaves were taken from in the Atlantic slave trade, to East Africa, to North Africa and the Middle East, to the Mediterranean coast, to central Europe to Scandinavia to Siberia to Central Asia to East A…

So what, someone being born in Europe does not automatically make them white. It just seems fishy to me. When she’s getting this amount of privilege from “being black”, saying that she identifies as black when she is clearly not black should not be enough.

Well, seems like other black people recognize her as black too, so I don't know what else can you expect. A person identifies as part of a group and the group agrees.

It's kind of like asking if Obama is really African American/Black. Races aren't sharply divided, it's a social grouping thing based on history, culture, etc.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#267

Post by pron »

coward8675309 wrote: post #265
pron wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interviews and leave the company! Why? It might be true that in the US the system is such that corporations are the property of their shareholders to do with as they please within the law, but that is a construct of a specific political process (e.g. [1]), and a…

This makes no sense to me. If you don't believe in the raison d'être of a company, you should not join the company. There is no need to delve deeply into competing theories of the corporation. I'm willing to bet that even over in Europe, Ruger, Sig, Glock, Walther, and Beretta don't have a ton of gadflies on staff who are paid to write papers calling for the outlaw of handguns.

It's possible that the company's values or behaviour have changed, but, more importantly, the decision to work at a company is mutual: both sides want it (the company expects the value an employee will bring exceeds the cost of their employment; hiring someone is not a charity), and they enter into this relationship when neither side knows everything about the other, certainly not how they would behave in the future. Just as the company can and does exert pressure on employees to do something they might not want, so can the employees try and exert pressure on the company to change a decision.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#268

Post by igorkraw »

mpweiher wrote: post #214
pron wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone would claim corporations are democracies, but the view that the corporation is its CEO and/or its shareholders isn't so obvious, either. There are clearly cultural differences here (e.g. see the situation in Germany [1]), but I don't think that the American view of what a corporation is and who it serves is necessarily the only reasonable one. I don't know any more details on this matter than tho…

As a German who has tested the labor laws himself: behaviour such as that displayed would absolutely be grounds for getting fired without the notice period ("fristlose Kündigung") here. And it's actually pretty hard to legally fire people. The reason is "Verlust des Vertrauensverhältnisses", i.e. loss of trust. You start making demands coupled with threats, and public ones at that, you are no longer an employee.

Where did she make demand coupled with threats? In her own words, she announced that she'd like to discuss an end date for her employment if she wouldn't be given the chance to fix the paper up for publication. This would very much fly in Germany. Her other email to the public list telling people to stop doing what they are doing might not, but then in Germany you'd have the Betriebsrat and the union stepping in and giving validation to such a firing (or not).

Googles problem is that Timnit - who was hired to investigate the ethics of AI - refused to just retract a paper that might contain inconvenient statements about the ethics of AI and then refused to just roll over when fired. And they refuse to adress that, and can't just be open and transparent about it by e.g. sharing Timnits emails to prove she was making threats and being unreasonable, so some people are made and have opinions.

In Germany, this would start and end with the Betriebsrat either blocking the firing or approving it. This would provide due process, transparency and legitimacy in one go.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#269

Post by crusso »

andrewprock wrote: post #166
crusso wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who just learned about this kerfuffle a few minutes ago, that doesn't make sense to claim that she was fired. If you offer to resign if new conditions of employment aren't met and the company accepts your resignation without honoring your exact terms of schedule, it sounds like you largely were responsible for terminating your own employment. Claiming that you were "immediately fired" as she tweeted just s…

The GP illustration of jumping it being pushed is quite apt. Your comment suggests that if someone threatened to jump under certain circumstances but was instead pushed you would be ok with that. This isn't just a framing. She was fired. Now you may say "she was asking for it" but that doesn't change the fact that she was fired.

No, the jump/push analogy is too contorted to be meaningful. Employers and employees have a relationship that has processes that have common meanings and names like "resigned" or "fired".

There's no accepted relationship if you push someone threatening to jump. You're just an a-hole committing assault and possibly murder.

Is there a link to the letter that she sent? That could help to clarify.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#270

Post by aabhay »

throwaway201606 wrote: post #163
motohagiography wrote: post #110

This issue reminds me a lot of what we do in security and privacy, which are ostensibly engineering disciplines, but are really technology governance functions. Ethical AI is also a governance function, and like hackers in security, there is an invisible yet stark limit to the value activists can provide in actual governance roles. Litigating demands is just not how governance gets done. The irony of Google hiring so…

I wish I had more upvotes to give for this comment. It gave me multiple upsights about how to clean up my approach thinking about the issues here: + framing an analogy using technology governance functions - whose functions and values can be clearly quantified and measured by many independently - with a ethical (moral) functions - whose values and results are much more nebulous + drawing a parallel between hackers -…

> Ethics is now inside the corp. fence so it has to be heard.

Do you believe this is a viable trend? This debacle seems to point to the death of 'Ethics research' inside of corporations. What do companies stand to gain from hiring ethics researchers who are a liability to the shareholders? My guess is that the model will go back to using CSR budget to invest in 'social good' non-profits and think tanks that stay at a safe distance while still mentioning you as a 'Platinum Sponsor' and bringing you in for fireside chats.

(this is not me advocating against ethics research, or against bringing ethics into AI research; I'm just trying to be as cynically realist as possible)

Post reply on HN