Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry • Hacker News Board

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#321

Post by mike00632 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #193

redwood wrote: post #149

This is a shameful situation. We need to all wake up and take a step back and realize what's happening here: increasingly you can't have a conversation about one issue unless you are a hundred percent pure in the eyes of a frankly self-proclaimed judge jury and executioner for 100% of your other views. I am of the left myself but on a meta-level what we're doing is essentially making it impossible to ever find middle…

Where would you draw the line? For example, would you put the president of company that sells a purported homeopathic measles cure (yes, that exists) on a medical ethics board in the name of finding common ground? I wouldn't, because they either (1) know that they are selling a product that is nothing more than a placebo, which they lie about to ignorant people, and which will likely lead to serious harm for many of…

This comment gets to the point. It's not just about the Heritage Foundation holding conservative views but about how they've falsified studies and put out deceptive rhetoric. This unethical behavior disqualifies them from serving on an ethics committee.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#322

Post by anon12345690 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #214

raxxorrax wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that's unacceptable for this role Do we really need to play facts opinion? In a discussion about ethics you include as many viewpoints possible or it become dishonest immediately. You are not a priest or something like that. It has taken too long to accept premised authority.

my opinion on this topic is irrelevant. But Google's opinion on who is on Google's AI ethics board matters very much, and it appears some things are settled questions for Google. Such as the humanity and dignity of trans individuals.

humanity? people use this word for PC virtue points. all people already have the same rights. trans people are not denied anything.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#323

Post by mpwoz » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

kuzehanka wrote: post #152

redwood wrote: post #149

This is a shameful situation. We need to all wake up and take a step back and realize what's happening here: increasingly you can't have a conversation about one issue unless you are a hundred percent pure in the eyes of a frankly self-proclaimed judge jury and executioner for 100% of your other views. I am of the left myself but on a meta-level what we're doing is essentially making it impossible to ever find middle…

You articulated so well what I've been observing. With the widening political divide, we find ourselves in this weird situation where any decision makers are swarmed with moral outrage attacks unless they're the bastions of politically correct ideology. An increasing number of topics are taboo because merely opening up a discussion around them summons the moral outrage army. Moral outrage has become most effective so…

I found the book 'The Righteous Mind' very eye-opening and it talks about exactly these things, I recommend it to all my friends.

Particularly relevant to my own experience was the commentary on how politicians have become less cooperative with their rivals in other parties, and how political views/party associations have become more extreme/less tolerant overall.

Highly recommend.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307455777

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#324

Post by moultano » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #144

laughinghan wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny, the mind-boggling sensitivity definitely goes both ways. I've known people who received direct but totally polite feedback suggesting they use one of many delightful gender neutral greetings instead of "guys", and became incredibly defensive. Probably described the feedback with a word similar to "nasty".

There's nothing "polite" about trying to create conflict out of trivial non-issues.

You don't get to call things "trivial non-issues" when by default they all tilt your way.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#325

Post by mike00632 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

sadris wrote: post #170

pjc50 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I haven't seen anybody make the argument that trans people should be killed Brunei?

Think their law applies to homosexuals, not transexuals.

If I were trans I don't think I would take my chances of them making a meaningful distinction.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#326

Post by manigandham » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #272

Veelox wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put the point user redwood made differently. There is a trend that certain questions have a "right answer" and if you don't believe the "right answer" it is okay to bar you from any and all discourse. While you might think "Trans rights are worth the sacrifice" the general trend in tech is that there is a "right answer" to same-sex marriage (Brendan Eich), biological differences between gender (James Damore), poli…

I'd personally be really cautious about making the mistake of conflating Damore with other topics. Damore, in particular, was fired legally because there are, in fact, some topics not up for discussion ( https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-rules-google-firing-... ). Companies aren't legally free to entertain the question "Maybe women can't be as good at computer engineering as men" without running very quickly in…

That's not what Damore actually said but he was fired under "creating a hostile workplace" which is up to interpretation of a private company.

What people have a problem with is that you can have people fired for holding political viewpoints in the first place. You seem to be saying that's ok to do.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#327

Post by anon12345690 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #278

redwood wrote: post #149

This is a shameful situation. We need to all wake up and take a step back and realize what's happening here: increasingly you can't have a conversation about one issue unless you are a hundred percent pure in the eyes of a frankly self-proclaimed judge jury and executioner for 100% of your other views. I am of the left myself but on a meta-level what we're doing is essentially making it impossible to ever find middle…

This has always been the case, there have always been purity tests. When was the last time a Democratic presidential candidate ran on an anti-abortion campaign or a Republican ran on a tax hike campaign? What’s fairly recent is that millions of us now have the potential to reach millions of people with our social media posts. My Tweets get more views than when I wrote for my college newspaper 10 years ago! So of cour…

trans is a choice, it doesnt belong in those other groups.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#328

Post by yesofcourse » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #303

yesofcourse wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "mildly unhappy" is about as far as I would go in this particular scenario. I suspect that you're only willing to say that because, at the moment, nazis are not anywhere close to being in a position to carry out any of their promises. Let's imagine that 30% of the general population agreed with this person's views, but that they were highly unpopular among educated people and had little influence in certain institu…

I agree that the degree of possible harm is important here. But I also think that if we start measuring that, then we have to compare the actual positions people hold to the one you ascribed to your hypothetical outspoken Nazi-like person. If someone who advocates murdering trans people were placed on such a board I would be a lot more up in arms than in the hypothetical Nazi-like case. For a number of reasons, inclu…

So, I absolutely agree that the Heritage Foundation is less dangerous to trans people than Nazis are to Jews. However, the parent seemed to be objecting prima facie to removing someone from an ethics board on the basis of their views on issues. If we concede that Jews should object to even a single Nazi being put on an ethics board, then that objection evaporates it's instead just a question of degree: how harmful do you think the Heritage Foundation's views are compared to those of a Nazi?

If Google put a literal Neo-Nazi on an ethics board, I would tell everyone I knew to stop using Google products and applying for jobs there. I'd probably set up a script on my university Gmail to auto-reply to everything saying that I can't be reached through a Nazi-supporting platform, and explaining to the sender can run the same script in protest. Knowing my university, we'd be off Google in a few weeks.

I'd say that the Heritage Foundation is about 2 percent as bad as a Neo-nazi organization (supposing that they were the same size), so I'm about 1/50th as concerned as I would be in the hypothetical scenario. But that's still enough that I'll post on Hacker News about it, and I'd probably sign the petition if I worked at Google.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#329

Post by jerf » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

muraiki wrote: post #284

jerf wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on your definition of "worship". It's not particularly well defined.

Yeah, for particular sects of Buddhism, such as Pure Land, one can observe practices that are more akin what we would call worship.

Heh, yeah, it depends on your definition of "Buddhism", too. It's probably somewhat better defined than "worship" in some sense, but still a broad target. Between the two fuzzy words you can craft significant overlap or make then virtual opposites.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#330

Post by Rebelgecko » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #312

Rebelgecko wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people can tell the difference between someone you don't agree with for ideological reasons and someone you don't agree with because they ignore facts for attention. I'm assuming the poster was referring to the former. There's a big difference between say, having a Republican on the committee vs a Holocaust denier. While it requires a certain amount of empathy to realize that rational people can have the same in…

>... because they ignore facts for attention... The Heritage Foundation literally falsified studies to go after LGBT people and claim they are unfit to have children. This isn't just about being ignorant of the facts or having behavior that proves you to be unqualified. This is about being completely counterproductive to the goals of the committee. That is exactly like having a flat-Earther on a space exploration com…

Do you have more info on their falsified LGBT study? My Google-fu is failing me