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

371–380 of 460 posts

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

#371

Post by bonoboTP »

AppleCandy wrote: post #353
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.

Read the "Toxoplasma of rage" by Scott Alexander or watch the "This video will make you angry" by CGP Grey.

No immediately reaching for maximum impactful tools will leave you behind and those who are not so "shy" to use strong words will advance and get more exposure. It's a memetic race. You get more attention for more outrage. Rewards and incentives shape what we see.

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

#372

Post by tomcam »

dragonwriter wrote: post #308
bzb6 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A black woman? How is she black?

> 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…

That’s a lot of words and I don’t really understand what you’re saying, but she is Black and identifies as Black. Or is she just a tool of the patriarchy for adopting such grossly over simplified self-descriptions?

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

#373

Post by nabla9 »

dang wrote: post #321
nabla9 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedro Domingos has the same childish mentality as the worst people he attacks. Petro is "Twitter trash".

Please don't cross into personal attack and name-calling on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Perhaps I should clarify that "Twitter trash" refers to persona he is in Twitter.

People are usually much better outside Twitter.

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

#374

Post by Miraste »

dang wrote: post #317

"Disingenuous" implies that someone is being deceptive, which breaks the HN guideline against assuming good faith: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . The rest of your comment would be just fine without that bit.

Fair enough. I can't edit it now, but s/disingenuous/flawed

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

#375

Post by coward8675309 »

pron wrote: post #364
coward8675309 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what general principles people are arguing for here, but the facts at the heart of TFA relate to someone laying down an ultimatum to an employer — "do these things or I'm going to quit" — and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye." That accepted conditional resignation (as someone mellifluously put it in an earlier HN discussion) is being interpreted by some as a firing. Having read the origi…

> and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye." ... and then other employees raising a stink, perhaps in the hope, misguided or not, that the company will reverse its decision or change its behaviour to help its PR. The employer can use whatever power they think they have, but so can the employees. It's one thing to say that what the employees did wasn't a wise way to achieve their goal, but it's a whole ot…

You're bringing issues of morality into this when it seems to me that the employees are more focused on self-interest and the accumulation and exercise of raw power while Google is preoccupied with public relations.

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

#376

Post by dang »

Miraste wrote: post #374
dang wrote: post #317

"Disingenuous" implies that someone is being deceptive, which breaks the HN guideline against assuming good faith: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . The rest of your comment would be just fine without that bit.

Fair enough. I can't edit it now, but s/disingenuous/flawed

I'll edit it for you and detach this subthread. Thanks!

I have this crazy idea to build a pull requests system for HN comments. People could suggest edits that way without cluttering the threads. It's either a terrible idea or a great one.

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

#377

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

cbozeman wrote: post #285
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, if that were the case, there wouldn't be "tensions in google's ethical AI group." They're clearly unhappy, and so are many google employees. This clearly isn't just one person, this clearly is bigger than that. > You'd be hard-pressed to find an ethical issue with how Edward Snowden handled the revelation of mass illegal spying on the American people. What ethical issue is there with the revelation of problems…

The problem, as I stated in another comment, is that these people don't really understand what their job is and that's causing this confusion. Their job is to build a bulwark for the company to guard it against negative press, and that will allow Google to create an AI that leverages all its data and currently existing infrastructure to increase shareholder value. They actually think their job is to prevent bad thing…

And Snowden's job was to keep the US government's spy systems working. So what?

Just because it's their "job" doesn't make it right or not worthy of whistleblowing.

If companies are doing bad things we want whistleblowers to tell us. I just don't understand your argument - "you can do bad things if it's your job." No. It doesn't work that way.

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

#378

Post by Miraste »

dang wrote: post #376
Miraste wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I can't edit it now, but s/disingenuous/flawed

I'll edit it for you and detach this subthread. Thanks! I have this crazy idea to build a pull requests system for HN comments. People could suggest edits that way without cluttering the threads. It's either a terrible idea or a great one.

For users to PR their own comments, or for anyone to PR any comments? The former sounds overcomplicated, but the latter... I don't know how that would turn out, but it would be fascinating to watch.

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

#379

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

throwaway19937 wrote: post #295
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We praise whistleblowers left and right on HN, at the expense of objectivity (assange, snowden, et al), despite ethical issues with them. Yet when a woman of color does it, "oh they are their own company and can do what they want and it's her fault for trying to be ethical in this space in industry." What?? Had a white male done this, it's hard not to think he'd be praised as a hero on here.

> We praise whistleblowers left and right on HN, at the expense of objectivity (assange, snowden, et al), despite ethical issues with them. HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison. > Had a white male done this, it's hard not to think he'd be praised as a hero on here. I'd be equally dismissive of any person…

> HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison.

Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things.

Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country.

I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change?

If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not.

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

#380

Post by GVIrish »

themaninthedark wrote: post #191
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…

Someone says they will quit noon tomorrow if you don't meet their demands. You will not meet their demands. You tell them not to bother coming in tomorrow and disable their security badge, did you fire them? They made the decision they did not want to work for you as had been previously agreed. You only changed the timetable. To put this another way, if I tell my company that I will be quitting in 2 weeks and they te…

So this gets into nuance and I will preface this with, we don't know what her email specifically said.

If you give your company a date for the cessation of your employment, that is giving notice. If you say I "will resign if", is saying that you will do something in the unspecified future.

So if you give your two weeks notice you have formally turned in your resignation. In your example I would agree that they just changed the timetable. If you haven't given your notice, and they terminate your employment citing an email you sent, you have been fired.

By all accounts she didn't submit her resignation, she simply said that she would. Sometimes situations like that result in the person getting cold feet, or the two parties working out a compromise. Maybe things would've always ended up the same way, but either way Google didn't wait for her to actually resign.

Post reply on HN