Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#21

Post by jariel »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #16

That is one of the better articles I have read on Google’s ethical missteps (that are probably correct from hard-nosed business optimization). We need government action to apply reasonable guardrails on the actions of the largest tech companies, a clear legal structure that puts society first and still allows growth and profits. I am a member of the Libertarian Party (recent, basically my disgust with the DNC and RNC…

We do not need government intervention to handle relations between companies and their researchers.

There's no 'whistle blowing' there, this is not even remotely on the 'needs intervention' radar.

'The Current Situation' with G and FB is complex, just because there might be some anti-trust issues over here, or some 'bad thing over there', does not mean that 'this issue here' needs intervention or even remedy.

With respect to 'Bias and AI' - companies are pretty self aware of this, and don't mind adjusting. I suggest the best way is to have independent researchers publishing, and letting those facts + some voices do the work. The researcher in question here actually published some work highlighting the challenges of inequality in data and G responded well to that. So that ironically might have been a better model than what they are doing now.

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#22

Post by giardini »

Google should close the "ethics" department and open another one dealing with etiquette. It seems we've lost our manners and need someone to help us find them again.

So sorry to see you go, "ethics", but we're just not ready for you yet. Perhaps someday when we're more evolved!8-))

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#23

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

glenneroo wrote: post #18
mfDjB wrote: post #9

I find the term "ethics" has had its meaning warped lately, ironically for the purposes of "ethics-washing" which is what this article is claiming is happening when big corporations engage in AI ethics. When I worked at a FAANG company in the machine learning field, there was a group of people interested in ethics, but they never seemed to discuss different views on ethics. They often seemed to use the word as a tool…

> The question as to whether these demands are ethical is not clear at all to me. You left out some vital pieces of context from the same article[0]: > The note centers on the departure of Google AI ethics researcher Timnit Gebru, which set off protests inside the company. Citing that situation, the employees called for a company vice president, Megan Kacholia, to no longer be part of their reporting chain. “We have…

Several of the cited passages you link are factually wrong. For example, she definitively resigned and was not fired. Saying she was “fired” instantly reveals partisanship and prejudice to de facto define Google to be in the wrong and the resigned researcher to be in the right completely divorced of the facts.

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#24

Post by itsdrewmiller »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #23
glenneroo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question as to whether these demands are ethical is not clear at all to me. You left out some vital pieces of context from the same article[0]: > The note centers on the departure of Google AI ethics researcher Timnit Gebru, which set off protests inside the company. Citing that situation, the employees called for a company vice president, Megan Kacholia, to no longer be part of their reporting chain. “We have…

Several of the cited passages you link are factually wrong. For example, she definitively resigned and was not fired. Saying she was “fired” instantly reveals partisanship and prejudice to de facto define Google to be in the wrong and the resigned researcher to be in the right completely divorced of the facts.

This is misinformation presented very confidently. Unless you give a date for your resignation and the company honors that date, it is a termination. She alluded to one in the future but didn't even give a specific one, as I understand it.

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#25

Post by itsdrewmiller »

sojournerc wrote: post #2

Am I wrong or is the very first sentence of this article factually incorrect? I understand that Google accepted her resignation in the letter, and did not fire her outright.

They framed it that way in their communication about it, but in practice they fired her:

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/human-resourc...

"Most state unemployment agencies consider a separation to be a voluntary quit (initiated by the employee) if the last day of work is within two weeks of the resignation date. So, if an employee gives two weeks’ notice and the employer accepts it immediately, the individual probably won’t be eligible for unemployment.

However, if an employee gave two months’ notice and the employer accepted it immediately, the former employee may be eligible for unemployment."

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#26

Post by dragonwriter »

sojournerc wrote: post #2

Am I wrong or is the very first sentence of this article factually incorrect? I understand that Google accepted her resignation in the letter, and did not fire her outright.

> Am I wrong or is the very first sentence of this article factually incorrect?

You are wrong in the simplest sense, a little bit more wrong somewhat more deeply, and possibly even more wrong even more deeply.

> I understand that Google accepted her resignation in the letter

First, you cannot resign with an completely unspecific effective date; a conditional statement that in should particular circumstances you would work with someone to set a final date is not a resignation. So there was no resignation to accept.

Second, even though characterizing it initially as accepting her resignation, Google in the termination notice then immediately turned around and identified that she was being terminated immediately for conduct separate from the resignation.

Thirdly, the fundamental dispute leading up to the whole “resignation/firing” end game was conduct that, from the descriptions throughout Google AI that have come out in response to the management story, is quite arguably the kind of targeted campaign of hostile treatment that defines constructive termination, which would make even an explicit resignation at the end still a firing for many legal purposes.

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#27

Post by prepend »

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #24
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several of the cited passages you link are factually wrong. For example, she definitively resigned and was not fired. Saying she was “fired” instantly reveals partisanship and prejudice to de facto define Google to be in the wrong and the resigned researcher to be in the right completely divorced of the facts.

This is misinformation presented very confidently. Unless you give a date for your resignation and the company honors that date, it is a termination. She alluded to one in the future but didn't even give a specific one, as I understand it.

> Unless you give a date for your resignation and the company honors that date, it is a termination

I’m not sure there’s such a fine line. Unless this is defined someone where in Google, I don’t think it’s accurate. I can resign in many ways and then there’s formalities.

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#28

Post by prepend »

dragonwriter wrote: post #26
sojournerc wrote: post #2

Am I wrong or is the very first sentence of this article factually incorrect? I understand that Google accepted her resignation in the letter, and did not fire her outright.

> Am I wrong or is the very first sentence of this article factually incorrect? You are wrong in the simplest sense, a little bit more wrong somewhat more deeply, and possibly even more wrong even more deeply. > I understand that Google accepted her resignation in the letter First, you cannot resign with an completely unspecific effective date; a conditional statement that in should particular circumstances you would…

> First, you cannot resign with an completely unspecific effective date; a conditional statement that in should particular circumstances you would work with someone to set a final date is not a resignation. So there was no resignation to accept.

Would you share some information on where this comes from. It sounds pretty authoritative. I’ve worked with people who said “I quit” and walked out. It seemed to succeed as they never came back. Could they come back the next day and say “well I didn’t specify a date therefore my resignation wasn’t valid?”

I’m not familiar with labor law, but I thought that resignation was a loose term that could fit many patterns.

This definition from feeling lucky on google [0] just says it’s the formal notice of voluntary termination and there are no laws governing resignations.

But it sounds like you have more info on this and I’d like to learn more about this.

[0] https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/resignation/

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#29

Post by itsdrewmiller »

prepend wrote: post #27
itsdrewmiller wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misinformation presented very confidently. Unless you give a date for your resignation and the company honors that date, it is a termination. She alluded to one in the future but didn't even give a specific one, as I understand it.

> Unless you give a date for your resignation and the company honors that date, it is a termination I’m not sure there’s such a fine line. Unless this is defined someone where in Google, I don’t think it’s accurate. I can resign in many ways and then there’s formalities.

It is: https://cuiab.ca.gov/board/precedentdecisions/docs/pb39.pdf

Re: How Google’s AI ethics meltdown could shape policy

#30

Post by dragonwriter »

prepend wrote: post #28
dragonwriter wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Am I wrong or is the very first sentence of this article factually incorrect? You are wrong in the simplest sense, a little bit more wrong somewhat more deeply, and possibly even more wrong even more deeply. > I understand that Google accepted her resignation in the letter First, you cannot resign with an completely unspecific effective date; a conditional statement that in should particular circumstances you would…

> First, you cannot resign with an completely unspecific effective date; a conditional statement that in should particular circumstances you would work with someone to set a final date is not a resignation. So there was no resignation to accept. Would you share some information on where this comes from. It sounds pretty authoritative. I’ve worked with people who said “I quit” and walked out. It seemed to succeed as t…

> I’ve worked with people who said “I quit” and walked out. It seemed to succeed as they never came back.

There's a pretty big difference between “I quit” (a simple immediate present tense statement) and “I will work with you on setting a non-disruptive end date” (a statement of future intent to set an as-yet-unspecified end-date.)

Here's some (Texas-specific, but broadly similar considerations apply in other US jurisdictions) relevant information:

https://www.twc.texas.gov/news/efte/types_of_work_separation...

> I’m not familiar with labor law, but I thought that resignation was a loose term that could fit many patterns.

There are many patterns of resignation, and many patterns of firing, but the difference between resignation and firing has important legal effect and is frequently disputed, and thus regulators and courts have developed rules for determining which actually applies in a particular case.

...And that's before even getting into the deeper constructive dismissal issue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

Post reply on HN