Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist • Hacker News Board

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#41

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:10 AM UTC

babesh wrote: post #31

Barrin92 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If true, that is damning it's not damning and not unethical, it's the definition of whistle-blowing.

There isn’t enough to tell based on the information provided. You are just viewing partial data with your biases. Haven’t we had enough of snap decisions based on personal biases?

okay granted. I think it's likely whistleblowing given what we have heard about the treatment of Gebru so far. However what it is definitely not is 'damning', and at this point I'm out of goodwill for Google to be honest. Less of a bias and more a healthier attitude towards big business.

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#42

Post by Cthulhu_ » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:10 AM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #15

esja wrote: post #8

“In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts.” If true, that is damning, and would demonstrate once again that being an “ethics researcher” does not mean that you are are any more ethical than the average person. It just means you are more interested in the subject. As a side note, I wish this field was more intere…

It’s not necessarily unethical to do that if you believe you are uncovering or preventing the cover up of unethical behaviour. Ethics is more than following the rules. See whistleblower protections for where that sort of thing intersects with the law.

Well yeah, but at the same time, exfiltrating internal company data is still grounds for dismissal. It could be ethical and the Right Thing to Do, but you still crossed a boundary.

She's lost her job; if she's lucky that's the end of it. She can probably sue to get her job back or a compensation depending on whether a judge or jury rules that leaking the data served a higher purpose, but it's debatable.

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#43

Post by TaylorAlexander » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:11 AM UTC

KirillPanov wrote: post #21

willxinc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically this is disallowed from non company devices. If you're allowed to sync your corporate email to your personal devices, that's probably an oversight.

So if IMAP-sync to corporate-owned laptops is a common and allowed use case how did an automated system notice this activity? It's not like the IMAP protocol sends the host MAC address or /etc/machine-id as part of the command stream. I'm really having a hard time imagining a plausible automated security system that would have led to this outcome.

I worked at Google and we used gmail, not IMAP, to view email. Corporate laptops allowed logging in to your corporate gmail, but I never saw anyone use IMAP and I have a feeling it wouldn’t be allowed. Once I left Google I had no access to my old corporate emails and I’m sure that’s the way they want it. I did thought experiments about data exfiltration and it would certainly be difficult. They control the OS on your system, they control the network, and they authenticate everything so no anonymous access is allowed. That’s why people get caught - they can see basically everything you’re doing on corporate machines or corporate networks and they know who you are.

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#44

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:16 AM UTC

esja wrote: post #8

“In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts.” If true, that is damning, and would demonstrate once again that being an “ethics researcher” does not mean that you are are any more ethical than the average person. It just means you are more interested in the subject. As a side note, I wish this field was more intere…

> If true, that is damning

Sure, and, if false, its also damning — in both cases, of Google management.

Either:

(1) They have received an early indication which may indicate either unauthorized or legally protected activity, and are publicly naming and blaming and specific employee before completing an investigation, which is merely grossly unprofessional and unethical though probably not actually illegal, or

(2) They are lying and libeling a current employee.

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#45

Post by markdown » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:19 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #14

esja wrote: post #8

“In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts.” If true, that is damning, and would demonstrate once again that being an “ethics researcher” does not mean that you are are any more ethical than the average person. It just means you are more interested in the subject. As a side note, I wish this field was more intere…

Many of the people in this field aren’t ethicists, they’re activists.

In a highly unethical environment, all ethicists are activists by necessity.

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#46

Post by NotPavlovsDog » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:20 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #14

esja wrote: post #8

“In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts.” If true, that is damning, and would demonstrate once again that being an “ethics researcher” does not mean that you are are any more ethical than the average person. It just means you are more interested in the subject. As a side note, I wish this field was more intere…

Many of the people in this field aren’t ethicists, they’re activists.

A large part of them believe that a researcher has to be an activist, i.e. research=activism. Many recent textbooks on social science see the following as credible resarch:

"Emancipatory research: Research that exposes underlying ideologies in order to liberate those oppressed by them." (Zina O'Leary textbook, used by many schools, over 2K citations for multiple editions)

So if a corporate behemoth such as Google wants to ethicswash itself by hiring individuals with the above approach, what outcome did it expect?

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#47

Post by throwawaygulf » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:20 AM UTC

Now that Trump is out, and virtue signaling is passe, I hope we see Bay Area companies start an inquisition against SJWs, their cancerous "woke" ideology, and activist employees.

The tide is slowly turning on them, for the betterment of society.

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#48

Post by ALittleLight » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:22 AM UTC

cauthon wrote: post #29

ALittleLight wrote: post #3

I was disappointed to find out that AI ethicists at Google aren't LessWrong style AI ethicists. I've just read one Google AI ethics paper in it's entirety but it seemed pretty non-insightful and not actionable. That said, if Google is "investigating" her because she was trying to find evidence of discrimination or bad treatment of Dr. Gebru, that seems borderline criminal behavior. (Assuming her attempts at trying to…

> I was disappointed to find out that AI ethicists at Google aren't LessWrong style AI ethicists. I've just read one Google AI ethics paper in it's entirety but it seemed pretty non-insightful and not actionable. This seems like a contradictory criticism to make. The Less Wrong folk, in my perception, mostly dabble in thought experiments (such as Roko’s basilisk) that aren’t terribly relevant to real world AI work. T…

Gebru's (and co-author's) work on racial error in facial recognition was done while they were academics at Stanford and MIT respectively and not while a Google AI ethicist to my knowledge. Roko's Basilisk is a banned comment from Less Wrong (though interesting) and doesn't really represent the totality of that site or the associated ideas.

https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-finds-gender-skin-type-bias-...

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#49

Post by renewiltord » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:23 AM UTC

KirillPanov wrote: post #21

willxinc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically this is disallowed from non company devices. If you're allowed to sync your corporate email to your personal devices, that's probably an oversight.

So if IMAP-sync to corporate-owned laptops is a common and allowed use case how did an automated system notice this activity? It's not like the IMAP protocol sends the host MAC address or /etc/machine-id as part of the command stream. I'm really having a hard time imagining a plausible automated security system that would have led to this outcome.

Well, then, there are at least a few paths of reasoning you can follow:

* Google automatically flags this by the volume of data transferred and alerts human eyes

* Google's alert erroneously fired and they made a press release about it

* Google is lying

* Your premise that it is a common and allowed use case is false

Why stop when your conclusion is absurd. These paths don't appear to take great creativity to identify.

Re: Google is investigating the actions of another top AI ethicist

#50

Post by visarga » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 8:23 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #14

esja wrote: post #8

“In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts.” If true, that is damning, and would demonstrate once again that being an “ethics researcher” does not mean that you are are any more ethical than the average person. It just means you are more interested in the subject. As a side note, I wish this field was more intere…

Many of the people in this field aren’t ethicists, they’re activists.

True, they only support their own political faction under the guise of "identity politics", not all people.

For example Andrew Ng is considered "white adjacent" because he's the only non-white in an article about the history of AI. Asians are not favored with this group of activists.