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

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

#81

Post by dgellow » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:06 AM UTC

valesco wrote: post #19

freeone3000 wrote: post #11

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.

What about credit score systems like the German SCHUFA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schufa.

They have their proprietary algorithm to calculate a credit score, for example you almost cannot find an apartment without presenting your SCHUFA review and there is now way to know how their score is calculated (it has even been shown in the past that they use incorrect or outdated data for their calculation).

That’s the definition of a black box in my book.

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

#82

Post by NotPavlovsDog » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:09 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #67

NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wan…

It was clearly a mistake. They don't act in a constructive way. Let's take Timnit's paper for example. She found out that Google had been using a biased language model in search. The bias was like - 'male' association with 'doctor' as opposed to 'woman' association to 'nurse'. But she didn't show how this is harming anyone in a concrete way. Just theoretical. And then she offered no solution, just blaming the work of…

With the hard realism approach, a corporate entity would fund an independent body of research, and then re-use publications that match their agenda.

Hiring someone (perhaps with aspirations to buy their loyalty?) entails risks. Instead of pulling funding from the "independent think-tank", google now finds itself in the midst of a potential discrimination/political scandal involving an employee.

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

#83

Post by knorker » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:10 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #69

mikejb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (1) case is a bit inaccurate/misleading. From what I can gather from the article: - Gebru tweeted the name of the employee [1] - Axios then reached out to Google, who then made the following statement: > Our security systems automatically lock an employee’s corporate account when they detect that the account is at risk of compromise due to credential problems or when an automated rule involving the handling of se…

> The (1) case is a bit inaccurate/misleading. No, its not. > Gebru tweeted the name of the employee Sure, more to the point Gebru tweeted that Mitchell’s corporate email appeared to be nonfunctional, sure. > Axios then reached out to Google That seems likely to be the sequence of events, sure. Usually and ethically, a company that was in exactly the circumstances Google described would have: (1) Declined comment, or…

The only way I can read your argument is if I were in the spirit of "the big guy is always wrong".

If you're accused of a SECOND action taken against an ethicist, and AGAIN it's not because of anything you did that was bad, then yes your hand is actually being forced to say more than "no comment".

It's absolutely incredible how much Google has not spoken out to defend itself against the lies upon lies upon inconsistencies that Timnit has thrown out. And now another case pops up?

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

#84

Post by mikejb » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:12 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #69

mikejb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (1) case is a bit inaccurate/misleading. From what I can gather from the article: - Gebru tweeted the name of the employee [1] - Axios then reached out to Google, who then made the following statement: > Our security systems automatically lock an employee’s corporate account when they detect that the account is at risk of compromise due to credential problems or when an automated rule involving the handling of se…

> The (1) case is a bit inaccurate/misleading. No, its not. > Gebru tweeted the name of the employee Sure, more to the point Gebru tweeted that Mitchell’s corporate email appeared to be nonfunctional, sure. > Axios then reached out to Google That seems likely to be the sequence of events, sure. Usually and ethically, a company that was in exactly the circumstances Google described would have: (1) Declined comment, or…

Just to get this straight:

The researcher who tweeted out the name of an employee who's email has been blocked, and throwing out theories about crackdowns and firings - that's all good.

Explaining the email account has been blocked due to mass-leaking documents - that's beyond excusable?

Sure. When facts contradict your opinion, you shouldn't hate the facts.

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

#85

Post by n4r9 » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:12 AM UTC

NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #46

nostromo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wan…

I feel like your first two sentences are conflating the belief that research has to involve activism, and the belief that activist pursuits are worthy research.

Why is the aim of exposing ideology not worthy of being researched in your opinion?

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

#86

Post by thishit » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #67

NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wan…

It was clearly a mistake. They don't act in a constructive way. Let's take Timnit's paper for example. She found out that Google had been using a biased language model in search. The bias was like - 'male' association with 'doctor' as opposed to 'woman' association to 'nurse'. But she didn't show how this is harming anyone in a concrete way. Just theoretical. And then she offered no solution, just blaming the work of…

Just shows that you didn't understand their paper then, if that's your disingenuous take on it.

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

#87

Post by throwawaysea » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:19 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #57

Zarath wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Google is doing something unethical?

Google is doing something unethical, even if Google wasn’t doing something unethical before they decided to name and blame an employee on a personnel matter before completing an internal investigation to establish the facts. There’s a good reason why even under direct questioning with the most serious internal indications but an ongoing internal investigation, companies simply decline comment on personnel matters. Of…

Isn’t that a one sided expectation though? Timnit Gebru publicly tweeted about this second activist losing email access. By calling Google out in such a public manner, I feel like Google is forced to respond publicly, to set the record and prevent the early viral spread of these activists’ one sided take/misinformation. Otherwise what happens is journalists like Kara Swisher source entire stories from these activists, plaster it across their platforms, and Google then faces another manufactured outrage PR issue.

Edit: another comment here also claims that Google’s statement was made because Axios reached out to them regarding this story after Timnit Gebru’s tweet. So there you have it.

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

#88

Post by thishit » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:20 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #75

hikingsimulator wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they are. You would not want a fire brigade that's only theoretical about putting fires out. 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…

> people who bemoan that social scientists are activists I'd prefer they label themselves as partizan ethicists or activists. > , that they are not supposed to actually develop solutions to what they study On the contrary, they should develop solutions, not just scandals. The problem is with activists who just want to criticize without contributing a solution. I suspect they are more interested in making a name for t…

Dismissing researchers as mere activists is a criticism made from a place of ignorance. Maybe you should learn a bit more about the topic before spouting off?

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

#89

Post by hikingsimulator » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:22 AM UTC

thishit wrote: post #88

visarga wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who bemoan that social scientists are activists I'd prefer they label themselves as partizan ethicists or activists. > , that they are not supposed to actually develop solutions to what they study On the contrary, they should develop solutions, not just scandals. The problem is with activists who just want to criticize without contributing a solution. I suspect they are more interested in making a name for t…

Dismissing researchers as mere activists is a criticism made from a place of ignorance. Maybe you should learn a bit more about the topic before spouting off?

My thought exactly.

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

#90

Post by hikingsimulator » Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 9:25 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #70

hikingsimulator wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they are. You would not want a fire brigade that's only theoretical about putting fires out. 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…

If you hired a researcher to find out the most effective strategies to putting out fires you might actually want a purely theoretical researcher. Advocates for air drops might be blind to firewalls and vise verse. There is also a reason to be cautious if a sociologist studying the effects of poverty were basing their suggestions on what would fix their own poverty.

Except social sciences aren't 'purely' theoretical. It's why it's sometimes called human science. There is a prominent human, and humane, part to it. It's a study of the human condition to some extent and it can't be separated from it.

As for your second point, that's true, but it's also why research is always open to criticism. Casting social scientists and ethicists in this case as activists feels like a political swipe.