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

#451

Post by sershe » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #447

sershe wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because management (or rather, shareholders) pay workers to do work, and not the other way around. Abstractly, workers telling shareholders how to run the company (out of the scope of what shareholders hired them for) would be similar to shareholders telling workers how to spend their paycheck.

I don't see why it's like that at all, but you realise that this is not how it's always been, even in America, and certainly not elsewhere? What seems "logical" to you is merely a current snapshot of a social construct that's been built built over decades of political activism by shareholders.

The only "social construct" involved here is "private property". If I hire someone to install carpet and pay them $X, we sign a contract about that and that only. They don't tell me how I should paint my walls; and I don't tell them how to spend their money. That's kind of the idea. If they start issuing ultimatums about painting my walls pink, or agitate with the painters that it's wrong to not do it, I'm going to fire them. Apparently, in the old days, by custom that was not like that, and you were expected to paint your walls pink if they insist; perhaps in other places it was even mandated by law.

Then Milton Friedman showed up and said "Hey, you just acceded to your walls being painted pink but, by the rules, you didn't have to do that!" If getting this notion across is activism, then I guess I'd stop thinking of activism as a dirty word. I thought it was more like education on a common-sense notion.

Come think of it, an alternative structure you seem to be advocating is also a solved problem in this scheme - it's called a co-op, and there are many successful ones around, from farms to clothing stores. Go found an internet search coop, and as a co-owner you'd be able to decide how it should be run.

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

#452

Post by visarga » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

fabian2k wrote: post #82

tomcam wrote: post #24

I have contempt for a lot of the things that Google does, but I have a sincere question about all of this. Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? I would say the same about Peter Norvig or Guido van Rossum. If you ran the company, or the department, or owned your own firm where employees aired your dirty laundry like this, why should you be expected to keep them on?

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…

Even an ethics researcher at Google can't give ultimatums. Who elected her the supreme leader of AI ethics? For example I have read her papers and Twitter messages and never have I seen any shred of inclusiveness towards my race. If some people are passionate and strive to do something, work hard and advance in their career, then all their accomplishments can be explained away as race privilege. The irony is that she's being presented as a fighter for equality.

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

#453

Post by pron » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

sershe wrote: post #451

pron wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why it's like that at all, but you realise that this is not how it's always been, even in America, and certainly not elsewhere? What seems "logical" to you is merely a current snapshot of a social construct that's been built built over decades of political activism by shareholders.

The only "social construct" involved here is "private property". If I hire someone to install carpet and pay them $X, we sign a contract about that and that only. They don't tell me how I should paint my walls; and I don't tell them how to spend their money. That's kind of the idea. If they start issuing ultimatums about painting my walls pink, or agitate with the painters that it's wrong to not do it, I'm going to f…

Even in the US labour laws are not like that. The relationship between an employer and employees is complex and its legal aspects ever-changing. In Germany, the structure of companies is quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

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

#454

Post by pron » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #394

pron wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> we have a company that does whatever the hell it wants and employees doing whatever the hell they want, False equivalence. The company is employing (and paying) the employee, not the other way around. This is not a symmetric relationship. This is the thing you seem to have a hard time with. And no, the company can't do whatever the hell they want either, they are bound by the contract and the appropriate laws. Whic…

> This is not a symmetric relationship. This is the thing you seem to have a hard time with.

Of course this isn't a symmetric relationship, but its nature, and even its legal nature, isn't ordained by nature, but is a result of political activism, and differs over time and place. Whatever that relationship is now in the US, it is clearly something that is as temporary as it's always been, and everyone constantly aims to change it. Google's executive and board are much bigger political activists than this group of employees, but they all seek to change the power balance.

> don't be surprised (and cry foul) if you are terminated.

You might not be surprised but crying foul is legitimate. Google does it all the time when it doesn't like various laws and tries to put political pressure to have them changed.

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

#455

Post by sershe » Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 11:54 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #453

sershe wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only "social construct" involved here is "private property". If I hire someone to install carpet and pay them $X, we sign a contract about that and that only. They don't tell me how I should paint my walls; and I don't tell them how to spend their money. That's kind of the idea. If they start issuing ultimatums about painting my walls pink, or agitate with the painters that it's wrong to not do it, I'm going to f…

Even in the US labour laws are not like that. The relationship between an employer and employees is complex and its legal aspects ever-changing. In Germany, the structure of companies is quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

The original question was "Why is it reasonable for management to be political activists but not the workers?" The reasonable labor law is generally about what contracts are and are not permissible and enforceable. For example, minimum wage means I cannot generally hire someone and pay them less, even if both parties are willing.

Beyond that, well on a spectrum with that, there are numerous ways to circumvent private property - for example, government may mandate (or maintain an informal policy) that workplace theft is not prosecuted, like they do with regular theft in some US cities. That can swing the other way too, they could make wage theft ok, for example. Doesn't make it reasonable.

If I own a company and employ no-one, for someone I then hired for a specified purpose to try to wrest control of the company away from me is not much different from a corrupt government or mafia trying to do it without a contract. The magic attached to the contract that would give employers such powers would make contracts all but meaningless.

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

#456

Post by pron » Sun, Dec 20, 2020, 9:46 AM UTC

sershe wrote: post #455

pron wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the US labour laws are not like that. The relationship between an employer and employees is complex and its legal aspects ever-changing. In Germany, the structure of companies is quite different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

The original question was "Why is it reasonable for management to be political activists but not the workers?" The reasonable labor law is generally about what contracts are and are not permissible and enforceable. For example, minimum wage means I cannot generally hire someone and pay them less, even if both parties are willing. Beyond that, well on a spectrum with that, there are numerous ways to circumvent private…

Even though private property is, indeed, a political construct, I don't see how everything follows just from it. Employment isn't fungible for the employee, it involves long-term personal relationships, possibly relocation, and it stands to reason that even if the company is the property of its shareholders in the sense that they enjoy its profits, because the risk is high for the employee they get a say in decisions; long-term employment is a kind of partnership. Not only is it more reasonable than the current weird situation, it is actually like that in other Western countries, and it even was like that -- though through a different mechanism -- in the US. It only stopped being like that after heavy political activism by corporations and shareholders.

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

#457

Post by selimthegrim » Sun, Dec 20, 2020, 10:11 PM UTC

red75prime wrote: post #399

bonoboTP wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how geographically localized that "well defined group" is. Are Eritreans in the same well defined group as Ghanans or as Lebanese? Are Cypriots the same as Lebanese or Italians? Are Italians in the same well defined group as Greeks or as Germans? Are Germans like Slovaks or like the Sami? You can surely say that the overlap in a Ghanan and a Sami person's ancestry is quite small regarding recent mille…

OK. Data for well defined groups here: https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf Advice to not interpret any genetic data in a divisive manner here: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Golden-Rice/Yudell-Taking-Race-...

This is an old paper. A lot more work has been done on Japanese and on Kalash (see Reich) and the Altaic language family is on the backfoot these days. Reich himself is also very sloppy with attributions about Dravidian language.

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

#458

Post by sershe » Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #456

sershe wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original question was "Why is it reasonable for management to be political activists but not the workers?" The reasonable labor law is generally about what contracts are and are not permissible and enforceable. For example, minimum wage means I cannot generally hire someone and pay them less, even if both parties are willing. Beyond that, well on a spectrum with that, there are numerous ways to circumvent private…

Even though private property is, indeed, a political construct, I don't see how everything follows just from it. Employment isn't fungible for the employee, it involves long-term personal relationships, possibly relocation, and it stands to reason that even if the company is the property of its shareholders in the sense that they enjoy its profits, because the risk is high for the employee they get a say in decisions…

Well, in that case there should be legislation for "minimum participation" akin to minimum wage, restricting property rights of the owners. There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work. That answers the question in the present.

As for the changes; the co-op structure already exists, so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'd expect more co-ops. As is, myself (and most people I expect) would rather have more money than more participation, in fact the poorer people would probably be the first to trade participation for money if they could. In the US, they can go either way at least in theory (the reason there are not that many co-ops is probably because few want more participation at the cost of money). In Europe, you are forced into a particular model. I view that as unfair.

The "political activism" was literally to remove restrictions to give people more options and/or to make people more aware of rules and less beholden to some unjustified ancient custom.

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

#459

Post by mpweiher » Fri, Dec 25, 2020, 8:52 AM UTC

pron wrote: post #454

mpweiher wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we have a company that does whatever the hell it wants and employees doing whatever the hell they want, False equivalence. The company is employing (and paying) the employee, not the other way around. This is not a symmetric relationship. This is the thing you seem to have a hard time with. And no, the company can't do whatever the hell they want either, they are bound by the contract and the appropriate laws. Whic…

> This is not a symmetric relationship. This is the thing you seem to have a hard time with. Of course this isn't a symmetric relationship, but its nature, and even its legal nature, isn't ordained by nature, but is a result of political activism, and differs over time and place. Whatever that relationship is now in the US, it is clearly something that is as temporary as it's always been, and everyone constantly aims…

> [asymmetry] isn't ordained by nature

Not by "nature", but the asymmetry is fundamental to the relationship: one entity provides a service the other pays for it.

Now the specific consequences of that fundamental asymmetry can be changed by political activism, but not the fundamental asymmetry itself. Unless you are going to start paying companies to employ you, whatever that actually means.

> Whatever that relationship is now in the US,

As I explained, the behaviour discussed would just as much get you fired in my native Germany, which is one of the most employee-friendly places around. So unlike what you are trying to imply, that this is a very specific point in the spectrum of possible relationships, it pretty much spans that entire spectrum.

> crying foul is legitimate

Nope, except for in the most legalistic sense: sure you can cry foul. Just don't be surprised if people aren't sympathetic and instead laugh at you. So basically crying foul will not be effective in those circumstances.

If you threaten to quit as a bluff in order to get your demands met, don't be surprised if the other party calls your bluff [and in many sense they have to call your bluff. If you don't understand that...well try to figure it out].

If it wasn't a bluff, then why are you complaining?

> Google does it all the time

How does Google doing something legitimise it?!? They deserve all the scorn they get when they do it.

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

#460

Post by pron » Mon, Dec 28, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

sershe wrote: post #458

pron wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even though private property is, indeed, a political construct, I don't see how everything follows just from it. Employment isn't fungible for the employee, it involves long-term personal relationships, possibly relocation, and it stands to reason that even if the company is the property of its shareholders in the sense that they enjoy its profits, because the risk is high for the employee they get a say in decisions…

Well, in that case there should be legislation for "minimum participation" akin to minimum wage, restricting property rights of the owners. There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work. That answers the question in the present. As for the changes; the co-op structure already exists, so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'…

> There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work.

Activism and ownership are two separate things. Activism is about changing existing laws, rules and customs. There isn't any law specifically allowing executives to engage in activism (meant to change or prevent the change of existing legislation), and yet they do, and on a much larger scale than employees. Google spends millions of dollars each year on lobbying.

> so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'd expect more co-ops

This is not true, because a better outcome for a more co-determined company is not necessarily a higher stock price. Forming companies requires raising capital, and so investors have a lot of power in deciding the structure of companies we see, and what they care about is the stock price. For example, if traditional private companies and co-ops fail or succeed at the same rate but private companies are funded 100:1 compared to co-ops, you'd see 100x more private companies than co-ops.

There is generally no reason to believe that pure market forces direct us to a "good outcome" at the needed pace. You could have said that if the abolition of slavery leads to a better outcome, then the market would have quickly made it disappear; but in the US the market didn't.

The redistribution of wealth over the last few decades in the US, and the West in general, away from workers is certainly not a good outcome.

> In Europe, you are forced into a particular model. I view that as unfair.

In America it is the same, only the model is different. It doesn't matter if the limiting power originates in the state or in other institutions. Despite little central regulation, feudalism or America in the Gilded Age was more, not less, restrictive on more people than under the regulation of the modern welfare state.