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

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#351

Post by intertextuality » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 4:42 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #153

intertextuality wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can have an opinion. When a person's title at a company is "Nuclear Weapon Ethics" and they go around giving talks, I would 100% expect them to have some sort of practical experience and knowledge in that domain. Just because you know a thing or two about ethics doesn't mean you are equipped to discuss a particular domain. How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what…

> How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what's -realistically- possible? What matters for ethics is the effects things have on people. You generally don't have to know how something works in order to understand what effects it has--someone who does understand how it works can figure that out and tell you. For example, if you had to decide between on the ethics of using a…

And then you’re dependent on experts to tell you that information.

In this case “using a nuclear weapon” is easier to reason about for a non expert. What about “using nuclear technology for renewable energy”? If the person doesn’t really understand the pros and cons of this by nature of being a domain expert, they’re just relying on whatever information they may have (incorrectly) learned or been indoctrinated about.

Otherwise smart ethics people may make stupid decisions because they think they understand what they’re talking about, but actually do not.

Just take existing domain experts and train them in ethics.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#352

Post by intertextuality » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 4:47 AM UTC

SerLava wrote: post #150

intertextuality wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can have an opinion. When a person's title at a company is "Nuclear Weapon Ethics" and they go around giving talks, I would 100% expect them to have some sort of practical experience and knowledge in that domain. Just because you know a thing or two about ethics doesn't mean you are equipped to discuss a particular domain. How can you possibly begin to discuss AI Ethics if you have no idea how it works or what…

To what degree? There's a difference between knowledge of what's practical, and experience in implementation. I'm getting the sense that the goalposts are ready to slide here, but I wouldn't expect an expert on "when to not do a new Holocaust" to be able to model interactions between uranium atoms. Not having any familiarity with the subject is obviously its own disqualification as an expert in a given area of ethics…

A more realistic area where experts would be needed might be “should we be using nuclear energy sources”?

In this case I don’t care how trained an ethics person is in ethics or history. They literally are not equipped to discuss this topic without being fed information from somewhere, which leads to its own issues.

I would much rather take domain experts and train them in philosophy, ethics, and history to an extent. That is far easier and better than the other way around.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#353

Post by rjf72 » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 8:54 AM UTC

kevingadd wrote: post #311

rjf72 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is inaccurate in a very ironic way. Not only are individuals specifically guaranteed the right to organize and discuss conditions/etc of work via company email [1], but this is a right that Google has been actively lobbying to rescind following the recent walkout that was organized largely by company email. [2] This right was specifically clarified/ensured by the NLRB in 2014. [1] - https://www.littler.com/nlrb-…

I'm not talking about rights, i'm talking about functionally not being able to do it. There's no way for them to send everyone a petition or poll or open letter. It's why I've never seen them. I would've had to be on those mailing lists.

Yes you are talking about rights. You just said said literally, "there's no allowed way [for employees to organize]". This is obviously wrong. So now you're backpedaling and changing your story to it's technically impossible for employees to widely organize. So just to clarify you're now stating both that you were working at Google during the time this event occurred and that there are absolutely no means of internal group communication, such as newsgroups, etc?

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#354

Post by Veen » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 9:06 AM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #338

Veelox wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you set up a spectrum and seem reasonable so I would like to know where on your above spectrum of acceptable to not allowed to "influence the public discourse". As a predicate, say I have a professional history of interacting with folks with diverse racial, gender, LGBT+, backgrounds. If I believe the below things, where on the spectrum would I fall? 1) I think that a physical border should be erected on the south…

> I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same. We are trying to build a liberal society here, right? > I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity. And how do you act on this opinion? In light of yo…

> That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same.

> We are trying to build a liberal society here, right?

That might be what you’re trying to do, but it isn’t what many conservatives are trying to do. Depending on the their type of conservatism, many consider the needs of the family, the community, and the nation to be of more importance that the wishes of the individual.

You appear to be saying conservatives are fine so long as they aren’t actually conservatives and are, in fact, liberals with slight conservative leanings.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#355

Post by tertius » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 11:38 AM UTC

intertextuality wrote: post #349

tertius wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So only insiders can be on ethics boards? How about pushing this to congress. None of them know hardly anything about anything. They delegate a lot of their thinking. So two problems. 1. People who are practitioners are more likely to be for the technology than against it. Tristan Harris is a good example of what you're looking for. 2. Going to the logical extreme on this doesn't work. P.S. Should we apply this to jo…

Yes, only people who know how the tech works should be discussing it. It’s far easier to train a skilled person in ethics than to take an ethics person and train them in that domain. I don’t buy your argument that all experts are necessarily proponents. Even within a domain there are disagreements. The government issue is real and also slightly tangential. We need to make working in the public sector more attractive.…

> Yes, only people who know how the tech works should be discussing it.

Well then we disagree. Being an engineer or a technician does not make you a good ethicist. And that's what we need.

Training an ethicist that is impartial or thoughtful from the beginning about the technology may also be easier than the opposite. They may be similar...

But training an engineer in ethics I think is a good step. Some fields, like medicine, have it somewhat built in. We can debate how effective or serious that actually is.

Being a technician or engineer does predispose you to thinking what you are working on or working with is ethical. I did list Tristan Harris as a good counter-example and someone that certainly can speak to the ethics of the issue. But his example is also a good example of engineers/technicians not being good candidates for being impartial because he has to be a type of activist.

> I don’t buy your argument that all experts are necessarily proponents. Even within a domain there are disagreements.

I said likely, not exclusively.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#356

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 11:39 AM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #342

pjc50 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling someone both fascist and communist is, if nothing else, logically incoherent.

How?

They're both ideologically different and socially distinct groups, and for the middle of the 20th century were shooting at each other on that basis?

Both labels have become extremely overused. Not every authoritarian is necessarily Fascist, calling everyone a Nazi isn't useful, nor is calling relatively mild redistributive processes or universal healthcare Communist.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#357

Post by lm28469 » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 12:11 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #342

pjc50 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling someone both fascist and communist is, if nothing else, logically incoherent.

How?

Fascism is by definition extreme right.

Communism is by definition extreme left.

Reinterpreting history and meaning of words is a national sport now, especially when you can use "bad words" against your opponents but it's nice to use the appropriate words.

Also, wanting free healthcare doesn't make you a communist, wanting market deregulation / more immigration control doesn't make you fascist.

It's a bit like people saying Trump is the new Hitler. Open a history book and read, he isn't 5% of a Hitler.

Using these words an comparison in these contexts completely destroy their meaning.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#358

Post by caconym_ » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #354

caconym_ wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same. We are trying to build a liberal society here, right? > I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity. And how do you act on this opinion? In light of yo…

> That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same. > We are trying to build a liberal society here, right? That might be what you’re trying to do, but it isn’t what many conservatives are trying to do. Depending on the their type of conservatism, many consider the needs of the family, the…

> That might be what you’re trying to do, but it isn’t what many conservatives are trying to do. Depending on the their type of conservatism, many consider the needs of the family, the community, and the nation to be of more importance that the wishes of the individual.

This is a very hand-wavey thing to say, that (as you say) quite obviously doesn't map perfectly to everyone who identifies as "conservative" and does apply to a lot of people who identify as "liberal". Gun control is one issue that comes to mind.

I touched before on the orthogonality of the progressive/conservative and liberal/illiberal axes, I think, so I won't go into it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

> You appear to be saying conservatives are fine so long as they aren’t actually conservatives and are, in fact, liberals with slight conservative leanings.

I think that's an incredibly reductive and inaccurate summary of what I said, unless the word "conservatism" has been redefined to mean "illiberalism", to make the latter more palatable.

Oh wait, yes, that is exactly what has happened.

In fairness to conservative thinkers, I will not be going along with this redefinition, and I will continue to call out illiberalism for what it really is.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#359

Post by Mirioron » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 9:46 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…

>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 into established law that prevents acting as if that hypothesis were true.

It's a good thing that that's not what he said though. Good job on misrepresenting his view point. I find this misrepresentation particularly funny, because he was trying to help, because clearly the way things have been done so far haven't worked. He tried to explain why and that we need a different approach.

>(Damore's also a bad example for supporting the hypothesis that holding wrong opinions bans you from discourse, because it appears he's been pretty vocal about his opinions since Google let him go).

Because most people can simply lose their jobs as though it's nothing? This would effectively create censorship for the vast majority of the population, because they are unable to risk losing their job.

>If a person were concerned about being fired for expressing a politically-charged viewpoint, I'd personally counsel them to consider whether that viewpoint is worth the price of the job, and if it isn't? Be silent. Silence is free.

You are literally advocating for censorship here. Imagine if people had held this opinion about homosexuality or transgender in the past? They were not accepted. Imagine if simply advocating or agreeing that people should be allowed to be homosexual would get you fired. I don't think that would've been good for society.

>I don't know why this thought is so scary to some people.

It's scary to people because we understand that we don't have all the answers. There are things we are wrong about and to challenge those ideas we need people to be open to speak their mind. The second reason is that a world built on censorship is a world of fear and fear breeds mistrust.

Re: Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

#360

Post by Mirioron » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 9:55 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…

>People who are women or gender non-conforming, racial minorities, homosexual or disabled have no way of changing their position in life so we protect them.

But not men? If you look into it you'll find that men are a minority in quite many places: universities being one of them.