51–60 of 125 posts
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?
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…
Also, if you're into the LessWrong mindset and are susceptible to think that that which can be destroyed by the truth should be, you might find this tidbit interesting:
> Buried in the recent trillion parameter language model paper is how the dataset to train it was created. Any page that contained one of these words was excluded: https://github.com/LDNOOBW/List-of-Dirty-Naughty-Obscene-and... Two sample banned words: "twink" and "sex" https://twitter.com/willie_agnew/status/1350551463718621184
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The benefit of what doubt? No matter how much you distrust Google, we can’t really presume they’re guilty of hypothetical accusations that haven’t actually been made.
I’m just saying that we should take their version of the story with a massive grain of salt.
The other activist was fired when she deployed political messaging code in production while hiding the whole process from her team and manager.
Do those strike as a people that will honestly present their story and would be good to work with? Ones that happily lie and fudge the truth to drive their agendas?
Because in my experience people who act like this, no matter what skin color they have, are corrosive and abusive to work with.
“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) The…
I’d bet the employee leaking documents did, and Google just responded to a request for comment.
It’s more the style of those players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those things are bad, and are worth thinking about, but right now we have more immediate concerns. AI systems are currently being used for bail eligibility, likelihood of recurrence, mortgage approval, and hiring. These are things that literally change people's lives on an individual level, and the systems being used are currently indecipherable black boxes that return a result with no possibility of meaningful appea…
European law foresees those exact cases and IIRC prohibits automated treatment of personal information that leads to decisions that affects someone’s life, if no human takes the final decision and if the specific elements for the decision cannot be explained. In my opinion this forbids black boxes.
“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…
What if Google is doing something unethical?
Of course, if they weren’t trying to poison the well about an imminent revelation of some greater unethical behavior on their part, they probably wouldn’t have engaged in the obvious unethical behavior. So...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
so are people claiming that it is unethical. we just need to wait for more information.
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.
So you're calling for a purge, just so we're clear?
“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.
It seems that the occurrence of people who bemoan that social scientists are activists, that they are not supposed to actually develop solutions to what they study, has increased in recent years. It's bad logic. A sociologist studying the effects of poverty shouldn't be interested in solving poverty is a mind-boggling idea.
There's something more pressing, now. People can concur here. I've found that this line of thought, that social scientists shouldn't be activists, is an idea that's been drummed about by the so-called 'intellectual dark web'. This rag-time team of pundits propagated a lot of conspiracy theories about the 'cultural marxism', the 'Frankfurt school', etc. It feels like an attempt at policing the content of social research under the cover of conservative/christian propriety.