Is Google’s AI research about to implode?

I don't think that's the right question. It's just about if Google can attract top researchers (or needs to).

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make, which is that developing "fair" algorithms, is not about developing algs that are e.g. pro-white-black equality, it is about developing algs that have option of equality built-in. It is then up to the user of the algorithm (you, Google, whoever), to "input" what or who should be equal.

It just so happens that currently the "input" is racial and gender equality. That's a societal choice, and one that is likely to change if e.g. racial equality is achieved and some new inequality arises. Maybe eye-color-based discrimination, who knows.

More generally than "equality", AI Ethics research gives us tools to analyze current methods and see where they fail to meet our ethical standards.

> History has shown us that defining ethics and writing them down merely spreads falsehood

Humans have been trying to improve their own condition for as long as there have been humans. Collectively defining acceptable behaviors is a never-ending task. Does that mean we should not undertake it? Absolutely not!

Writing down ethics isn't about spreading falsehoods, it's about cooperation. Cooperation involves compromise:

> AI Ethical research can never be an accurate representation of the majority of humanity - or even the majority of its users! If it can it is not sustainable for any long period of time.

Laws can never be an accurate representation of the majority of humanity - or even the majority of its users! If it can it is not sustainable for any long period of time.

Culture can never be an accurate representation of the majority of humanity - or even the majority of its users! If it can it is not sustainable for any long period of time.

Morals can never be an accurate representation of the majority of humanity - or even the majority of its users! If it can it is not sustainable for any long period of time.

Do you see the pattern? Things change, that's normal. We still have laws, and culture and morals, but we adapt them to our needs. Are you suggesting we should simply reject anything that changes? You won't be left with much.

I'm still very much interested in improving my own condition. That includes pushing people to behave in ways which I think would do that. People have different interests and their condition is often at odds with other people's condition. This is the foundational difficulty of living in a society of more than 1 individual. Yet we 8 billion humans still manage to be fairly successful at it. I wonder why?

Cultures and morals change. Does that make the morals of the past falsehoods? Of course not. They're just different perspectives on the human condition, probably best suited to the material conditions of the past.

Calling someone today is often seen as rude when a text would suffice. This is due to our material conditions, the ubiquity of cellphones.

> It would be better to just admit ...

You're suggesting we should admit defeat? Give up and let Google maximize profit? AI is a wonderful tool that could improve the material conditions of most of humanity if used correctly. It could also be devastating. I'd rather it not be devastating, so I'm going to continue supporting people who try to do research into aligning AI with whatever ethics we collectively agree on.

> I don't think we are actually better off morally now then 50 years ago

This is pretty sad.

Don't confuse your own cynicism vis-à-vis big tech with some nihilistic historical inevitability. The global improvement of the material conditions of people in the last 50 years have enabled us to start asking for ourselves what morals we actually want on a global scale, rather than this exercise being left solely to a self-interested elite.

Regardless of how better off morally _you_ think we are or aren't now, the space of collective possibilities is now immensely larger, whether you like it or not. That, is wonderful.

Much more people than you expect have at least one exceptional skill; from my observations I would say at least 20 to 30%; the more extraordinary skills per person, the rarer of course. And if indeed the human workforce were really such a generic, easily replaceable commodity, why do most companies, including Google, go to such great lengths in recruiting, with assessment centers and so on? And why are there so many unemployed IT specialists, for example in Germany, when at the same time the industry associations claim that jobs cannot be filled?

  How many people have the opportunity to be Einstein?

Everyone who has access to (public) education, probably. And of those whomever has a relentless will for achievement. And/or is, by nature, curious about stuff. There's a reason why the lines between genius and mental illness get blurred sometimes. Remember John Nash, Jr.?

  How many people have the right brain, and the right interest, and write the right paper at the right time?

  How many are starving in an underdeveloped country and no access to education, for that matter.

I wouldn't know but I'd estimate millions.

  Einstein wasn't necessarily a unique genius standing at the pinnacle of an intellectual mountain.

Whether you like it or not, he was a genius, and unique in his own way (like everyone else is - even you), along with various other well-known peers of his time and lots of other people before them.

Now, obviously, they, as well as any "proper" scientist, are well aware that none of their work would mean anything if they didn't stand on the shoulders of giants. Science is a branching tree of giant people.

  He was a beneficiary of survivor bias. We don't know how many other "Einsteins" there have been, or could have been, because we only tell success stories.

Following your train of thought then no one's achievements - even those who you claim don't have the "right brain," "right interest," don't "write the right paper at the right time," are "starving in an underdeveloped country" and "without access to education" - would mean anything.

So, to get back to the subject: replaceability depends on the kind of job. It may be simpler to replace a fast food worker, but a Richard Feynman? an Albert Einstein? or ? I doubt it. Those people made a difference in their respective fields and no one can take that from them. And I'd say the same if it were someone else from other countries, ethnicities, etc.