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

351–360 of 460 posts

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

#351

Post by ergocoder »

GVIrish wrote: post #94
ergocoder wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why this matters. Timnit gave an ultimatum (i.e. do this or I'll leave). Google agreed to her condition of parting way. This is like I go to my boss and ask for a $1 billion dollars. Otherwise, I'll leave. Then, my boss decides that I should leave since the boss can't give me $1b. Then, I keep telling my friends that "well, I'm actually fired.". huh?

She gave a set of conditions and stated that if they couldn't be met, that she would work with Google to schedule a resignation date. Google then cut off her corporate access and terminated her employment immediately, ergo, firing. If someone says, do this or I'll jump, and the other person pushes them, that's not the same thing as the person taking the leap on their own. The result might be the same, but the way the…

> Google then cut off her corporate access and terminated her employment immediately, ergo, firing.

It's also unreasonable that she will get to choose her leaving date at her own liking.

When wanting to part way, either side has the full right to choose an earlier date.

> If someone says, do this or I'll jump

This is not a great analogy. I actually would go as far as saying people who use this analogy have malicious intent.

When death is involved, everything else becomes secondary.

Let's look at a small example. Say I'll commit suicide if you go and see your kids today. Now it's only one day, and you (as a decent person) will probably skip seeing your kids for one day to save one life.

Now if I say I'll quit my job if you go to see your kids today. You would probably say "Then, please quit."

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

#352

Post by throwaway201606 »

frongpik wrote: post #339
throwaway201606 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

That idea that activists (in corp) don't constitute a tribe in an interesting opinion - one that I actually sorta-subscribe to.

I frame it in terms of acculturation vs. assimilation. You have to decide what your corp. policy is and make it explicit, something that I think did not happen here.

The conversation is something like 'if you join us, you do your thing BUT our way" or "if you join us, you do your thing YOUR way". Then folks coming in understand the ground rules.

I would say most corps will prefer option 1 but some (most?) folks coming in for roles like "Ethics" expect option 2 - which is NOT unreasonable. I don't know that this conversation happened (explicitly enough) here.

All of that aside, like I said in the parent comment, it is critical to consider that no one side gets to frame the position alone in situations like this where the job is literally, to come in and shake up status quo - everyone with a seat at the table has a say that should have equal-ish weight.

Also, note, corp in this specific case thought that that they are enough of a "tribe" to bring them inside the fence with a 'unique' label that makes that 'tribe' explicit. Witness what is going on here.

Labelling them as "spoiled kids" is "the missing part of the point" I was alluding to.

These folks have a different way of doing things. In bringing them in, you don't get to force them to align to your vision of how to do things (not what to do which you get to define as the employer). This is because you brought them in specifically and explicitly because they were different and bringing something different to the table that you did not have before.

If it was a set of skills, capabilities - whatever - that you could have grown in-house, you would have done so.

If you think that a 'tribe' can contribute value, you have to be able to deal with the pieces of their being 'different' from you that rub you the wrong way without labelling them if it is a key component of their identity.

More explicitly, don't blame ethicists for reacting in ways you don't expect to ethical issues.

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

#353

Post by AppleCandy »

quantaum_dot wrote: post #342

These so-called ethical AI researchers are not really doing much science, not even truly researchers. They are more like politicians, and are playing the game of politics.

Better people-skills and emotional intelligence would work wonders here, compared to immediately reaching for the hatchet and communicating through demands and ultimatums. Reflects very poorly on them for their inability, in this case, to start a civil conversation which can be ramped up in so many appropriate ways.

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

#354

Post by ergocoder »

andrewprock wrote: post #349
ergocoder wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The push/jump illustration holds just as well if you are at the edge of a pool. You don't need death on the line to understand the difference between who is making the decision.

"If you eat dinner today, I'll commit suicide." - I'll probably skip dinner to save life.

"If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, I'll probably tell person that they can quit their job. I'm not gonna skip my dinner for that.

I hope this illustrates that, when death is involved, everything else becomes secondary, and we prioritize not death over everything.

So, it's a bad analogy to use in Timnit's situation where she will quit if she doesn't get to see the identities of peer reviewers. This situation is not life and death.

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

#355

Post by geodel »

pron wrote: post #199
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I'm not really trying to defend Google one way or the other. At the end of the day it seemed like Gebru published a paper that was quite critical of how Google intends to make a sizable portion of their revenue, and anyone should understand that when you do that in a large company, it's going to get extra scrutiny. And it could very well be that the whole purpose of Google's "ethical AI" team in the first plac…

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?

Huh, last time it was contractor treatment issue. Make a show of protest and then get back to desk at work. I wish these world leading AI ethics researchers show some ethical spine and at least go on strike if not resign until management come to talking table and meet their partial and full demands.

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

#356

Post by andrewprock »

ergocoder wrote: post #354
andrewprock wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The push/jump illustration holds just as well if you are at the edge of a pool. You don't need death on the line to understand the difference between who is making the decision.

"If you eat dinner today, I'll commit suicide." - I'll probably skip dinner to save life. "If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, I'll probably tell person that they can quit their job. I'm not gonna skip my dinner for that. I hope this illustrates that, when death is involved, everything else becomes secondary, and we prioritize not death over everything. So, it's a bad analogy to use in Timnit's situati…

Sure, but you left out the actual situation:

"If you eat dinner today, I'll quit my job" - then, you fire them and get on with dinner.

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

#357

Post by GVIrish »

crusso wrote: post #101
GVIrish wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She gave a set of conditions and stated that if they couldn't be met, that she would work with Google to schedule a resignation date. Google then cut off her corporate access and terminated her employment immediately, ergo, firing. If someone says, do this or I'll jump, and the other person pushes them, that's not the same thing as the person taking the leap on their own. The result might be the same, but the way the…

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…

If someone states I will do X if you don't do Y, it still comes down to the person choosing to take some action X. If you don't take action Y, it is still on the first person to choose to take action X. She may have intended to hand in her resignation, but she did not get the chance.

She said if these conditions are not met, I will work with you on an end date. That's not what happened, she was terminated immediately with the rationalization being that they didn't like the tone of the email she sent to the Google Brain Women and Allies listserv. That alone points to it being a termination.

Is she largely responsible for her employment ending at Google. You could say yes, but fact is that Google is the one who cut things off.

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

#358

Post by uh_uh »

jasonhong wrote: post #130

I find it interesting how, in the other current thread about an antitrust suit against Google ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718 ) that people there are criticizing Google's lack of ethics, and in this thread people are criticizing a team in Google whose goal is to try to get Google to act more ethically.

Multiple statements can be true at the same time:

1. Google has a lack of ethics.

2. Google's ethics team is not doing a good job.

I'm not saying either of these are true. But if they are, there's no contraction here. In fact, 2 would support 1.

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

#359

Post by themaninthedark »

dannyw wrote: post #249
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…

Why? Maybe this is my Australian worldview, but if my company is doing unethical things, here is my progression: 1. Speak up internally. 2. Speak up externally. 3. Speak to the media. Do you think the Uber sexual harassment whistleblower should have kept quiet?

Sexual harassment is illegal, that is very different from something you find unethical.

eg. Disabling safety equipment so that a job can be completed faster - illegal

Locating toys and candy to low shelves at registers so that children see them and nag their parents to buy them, increasing sales. - unethical in my view but called good marketing by many others.

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

#360

Post by pron »

mpweiher wrote: post #324
pron wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the fact that employees are employed and paid by the company to work for the company. The view that the company is separate from the employees and they don't get a say in its direction is a construct of many years of political action. It's not some natural law; it's a political result reached through activism. Anyone is free to try and get a different result, and each side will judge how much power they have in thi…

> [..] is a construct It is the way companies are currently constructed, pretty much everywhere. Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want. Once again, if you want to agitate against the company, you are free to do this. Just don't expect the company to employe you. > But th…

> Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want.

But then you have a recourse that might not be available where this is not the case. Even in your telling of it, we have a company that does whatever the hell it wants and employees doing whatever the hell they want, and I see no reason to hold employees to a higher standard than we hold the company.

> Once again, if you want to agitate against the company, you are free to do this. Just don't expect the company to employe you.

Sure, but that is a question of power and tactics. The company could sack you, and it could also suffer negative PR as a result. Both sides use whichever power they have to their advantage. You could argue that what the employees are doing is not smart and that they might be overplaying their hand, but not that what they're doing is wrong.

> Not without limits. Boards are answerable to shareholders, and may be held liable if they act against the interests of shareholders.

Yes, but even the interests of shareholders are a result of political action.

> But even then it is the board that decides this, not random employee X.

But whether or not employees are on the board is itself a result of political action. In the US, they're not (as a result of political activism), but anyone is free to take any political action to change that.

> As an employee, you are in a chain of command (tends to also be in your contract, which you entered into voluntarily).

But as long as you're not breaking the law, you're allowed to take whatever action you please, including one that risks termination. The company might well be within its rights to sack you, but that has a cost so they might not do it. Corporations do such things all the time, sometimes choosing to risk litigation, and I see no reason why workers couldn't or shouldn't. Each side uses whatever power they have to their advantage.

Post reply on HN