Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by SyzygistSix » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

free_rms wrote: post #86

fabian2k wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this particular job does require a certain independence to do it properly. If business concerns would override and silence the Ethical AI team, then you might as well not have one in the first place. It would be purely a PR thing, which it well might have been after all. Having someone that is known to speak their mind in such a team does lend it more credibility. But you also can't complain if they then spea…

The paper she was fired over was leaked, though, and it's.. not novel. It's the same things everyone else has been saying for years (global warming bad, also don't build a racist speech reproducer), and Google wanted her to reference their efforts to mitigate those things in addition to repeating yet again that they can happen. Self-serving? Sure, but not really censorship and honestly would make the paper better to…

Was she fired over the paper? Or was she let go because she, with a position as a manager, told other people at Google not to participate in the DEI program because it was useless?

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

#332

Post by igorkraw » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #323

igorkraw wrote: post #282

I find it sad that a good chunk of HN seems to just go with the "she's a toxic person" narrative without ever relaying what she actually DID. Ironically, the self identified "anti-SJW" are cancelling her by complaining about her "toxicity" and "attempts to cancel people" in vague terms. I also find it sad that apparently, freedom of speech and free actions end when it comes to criticizing your employer in public, sho…

OK, so my top comment on this post calling out the ethical AI group and Gebru as toxic got flagged, and I'm still a bit salty about that, but I'll respond constructively to this statement: > a good chunk of HN seems to just go with the "she's a toxic person" narrative without ever relaying what she actually DID I didn't feel the need to add a ton of details because it all seemed quite clear. I mean, in this case, all…

Even if you don't want to rehash it, I feel like making concrete statement of which of her actions you feel were toxic is more constructive than vilifying her personally. Contrapoints made a good video on cancelling that highlights the difference between critique and cancelling, and there's a big difference between saying "she publicly accused Yann lecun of using his platform to direct his fanboys at her" and "after what she did to lecun, it's obvious she's a toxic person". In the latter you

- leave open to the imagination of the reader what she did (which might be more negative to them than how they'd react to her actual auctions)

- attack her person, not her actions, which is a big difference even pg wrote about iirc

- make it impossible for the reader to rationally engage with your point, since all you share are emotions

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

#333

Post by throwaway316943 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #264

throwaway316943 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A corporation is not obligated to keep you employed nor should they be outside of a legal contract. I’d prefer it stays that way because I don’t want to be compelled to work for anyone or have them be compelled to hire me. They’re two sides of the same coin.

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

#334

Post by themaninthedark » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

pietrovismara wrote: post #293

igorkraw wrote: post #282

I find it sad that a good chunk of HN seems to just go with the "she's a toxic person" narrative without ever relaying what she actually DID. Ironically, the self identified "anti-SJW" are cancelling her by complaining about her "toxicity" and "attempts to cancel people" in vague terms. I also find it sad that apparently, freedom of speech and free actions end when it comes to criticizing your employer in public, sho…

We grow up with the ideal of democracy and treat it as the single most important value we have to protect. Yet we spend the best (awake) third of our life in authocratic environments, where decisions that can deeply affect our lives are taken without our consent. Where speaking up for ourselves or our peers' good gets us fired. I also find it incredibly sad.

We charish the idea of democracy as a from of government that allows a large group of people with widely divergent views to come together and live under the same roof. Generally a business or corporation is not aiming for the same thing, either profit or market share.

An autocratic or authoritarian governance is great for getting results but not so good for consensus.

For most people in the country, they can change jobs to find a company that they like working for, it is much harder to change countries.

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

#335

Post by bonoboTP » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #294

Is there any realistic chance google just disbands the entire team?

That will have a ripple effect in other parts of the org with similar political opinion, ultimately destroying the reputation of Google in the eyes of the general population of the same political leanings.

My prediction is they will put new processes in place, perhaps put the team organizationally in a different place from under Kacholia, apologize louder and clearer, but probably not take Gebru back.

It's quite unpredictable though! The disagreement is too big, there will need to be some more explicit closure to the issue than what we have already seen.

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

#336

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

bzb6 wrote: post #327

dragonwriter wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A black woman? How is she black? She's not “black” nor was that claimed; she’s “Black”. The first is a common adjective that never really applies to humans except very loosely, the second is a racial identity group formed by and defined largely through oppression by European and (in US usage; usage and identity elsewhere has evolved through different local forces and experiences) later European-descended American b…

> She's not “black” nor was that claimed; she’s “Black”. You must be deep inside some cultural bubble not to see how hilarious this sounds.

Hey, look, I'm not the engineer of the European oppression that created the modern racial identities (largely through shared experience of oppression, except White identity, which was created through shared experience as oppressors) and shaped most of the language around those identities. If you want to argue that the categories make no fundamental sense, you aren't wrong in their original delineation; they are groups of shared experience (which is also why even when the terms are the same or deeply etymologically linked, they have different concrete meaning in places where the historical experience worked differently; places, for instance, where the “one drop rule” [0] was a major historical force will, all other things being equal, have a far more expansive concept of “Blackness”.)

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

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

#337

Post by ergocoder » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:03 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #269

andrewprock wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is. You probably can Google for it.

The demand is something around exposing the identities of the peers who reviewed and rejected her paper. If Google doesn't give her the identities of those peers, she say she will leave the company.

Comparing to suicide is a bit much though. When considering death, everything else becomes secondary, so we can't use that analogy for comparison.

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

#338

Post by igorkraw » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #312

pietrovismara wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We grow up with the ideal of democracy and treat it as the single most important value we have to protect. Yet we spend the best (awake) third of our life in authocratic environments, where decisions that can deeply affect our lives are taken without our consent. Where speaking up for ourselves or our peers' good gets us fired. I also find it incredibly sad.

The division is metaphysical / epistemological / narrative / tribal / ideological / religious etc. Way deeper than who is right in this Gebru vs Google debacle or the specifics of this one paper. These debates go nowhere because both sides see the other as toxic and a threat and don't agree on basic terms, the basic view of who is in power, who needs to fear for their jobs for dissent etc. "but here Gebru was fired,…

For the record, I found it a pity damore was fired, and I think he and timnit should be allies in this. A German feminist actually analysed his memo and while she disagreed with the evo-psych bits, she actually pointed out that his argument that diversity without changing work conditions by e.g. making part time the norm is hypocritical was actually a pretty valid critique.

In fact, I think you can argue both Timnit and Damore got fired for the same reasons:

- they pointed out that Google's efforts are hypocritical ethicswashing which gets discarded as soon as it actually affects the status quo

- they created bad PR

- they had no workers council or unions to back then up

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

#339

Post by frongpik » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

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 -…

I disagree that these activists constitute a tribe. They are really just spoiled kids who used to have power over their parents. Now they enter the big world and keep doing what they've been always doing: throwing tantrums and yelling silly demands at their parents. But other adults don't care, so the spoiled kids get ignored and then shown the door. Now they are stunned: they don't understand why the world doesn't work the way they thought it should work.

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

#340

Post by istjohn » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

bzb6 wrote: post #327

dragonwriter wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A black woman? How is she black? She's not “black” nor was that claimed; she’s “Black”. The first is a common adjective that never really applies to humans except very loosely, the second is a racial identity group formed by and defined largely through oppression by European and (in US usage; usage and identity elsewhere has evolved through different local forces and experiences) later European-descended American b…

> She's not “black” nor was that claimed; she’s “Black”. You must be deep inside some cultural bubble not to see how hilarious this sounds.

White people aren't white, either[1]. Maybe I'm sitting at the bottom of a deep cultural abyss, too.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Luschan%27s_chromatic_scal...