Slashdot Mirror
Google Employees Are Lining Up To Trash Google's AI Ethics Council (technologyreview.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: Almost a thousand Google staff, academic researchers, and other tech industry figures have signed a letter protesting the makeup of an independent council that Google created to guide the ethics of its AI projects. The search giant announced the creation of the council last week at EmTech Digital, MIT Technology Review's event in San Francisco. Known as the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC), it has eight members including economists, philosophers, policymakers, and technologists with expertise in issues like algorithmic bias. It is meant to hold four meetings a year, starting this month, and write reports designed to provide feedback on projects at the company that use artificial intelligence.
But two of those members proved controversial. One, Dyan Gibbens, is CEO of Trumbull, a company that develops autonomous systems for the defense industry -- a contentious choice given that thousands of Google employees protested the company's decision to supply the US Air Force with AI for drone imaging. The greatest outrage, though, has come over the inclusion of Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that opposes regulating carbon emissions, takes a hard line on immigration, and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights. The creation of ATEAC -- and the inclusion of Gibbens and James -- may in fact have been designed to appease Google's right-wing critics. At roughly the same time the council was announced, Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, was meeting with President Donald Trump. Trump later tweeted: "He stated strongly that he is totally committed to the U.S. Military, not the Chinese Military. [We] also discussed political fairness and various things that Google can do for our Country. Meeting ended very well!" "Not only are James' views counter to Google's stated values," the letter states, "but they are directly counter to the project of ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes justice over profit. Such a project should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making."
But two of those members proved controversial. One, Dyan Gibbens, is CEO of Trumbull, a company that develops autonomous systems for the defense industry -- a contentious choice given that thousands of Google employees protested the company's decision to supply the US Air Force with AI for drone imaging. The greatest outrage, though, has come over the inclusion of Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that opposes regulating carbon emissions, takes a hard line on immigration, and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights. The creation of ATEAC -- and the inclusion of Gibbens and James -- may in fact have been designed to appease Google's right-wing critics. At roughly the same time the council was announced, Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, was meeting with President Donald Trump. Trump later tweeted: "He stated strongly that he is totally committed to the U.S. Military, not the Chinese Military. [We] also discussed political fairness and various things that Google can do for our Country. Meeting ended very well!" "Not only are James' views counter to Google's stated values," the letter states, "but they are directly counter to the project of ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes justice over profit. Such a project should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making."
"and has argued against the protection of LGBTQ rights"
No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people. They shouldn't get special treatment or special laws. That's not how it works, we're all to be treated equally under the law.
Looking at the furor over simply having someone with a slightly different point of view be able to speak and take part in decision making, it appears that humans are absolutely garbage at ethics determinations and probably we should just let the AI do whatever, it'll probably end up better than us at reasonable behavior.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You'll be branded as a racist and be fired and nothing will change.
"How DARE they include people who aren't politically aligned to the far left! They'll run amok with their wrong think, mansplaining and **insert -phobic word of the week here.** Dissenting views will not be tolerated in our AI discussions!!!"
My god, the hypocrisy is overwhelming.
And Trump should just forget the word exists altogether.
We can't have that! We need groupthink that gives no consideration at all to opposing ideas!
The ethics of only hearing approved viewpoints and opinions.
How very fascistic of Goolag.
"should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making"
Unless it's the majority vote, in which case, the minority gets more say. Hmm ... aren't these the same people that want to elect a President based on the popular vote and not the Electoral College? Isn't making the "vulnerable" minority communities the center of the decision-making counter to their populist beliefs?
Asking for a friend.
Why do the smart people at Google not get that violence (or the threat of it) keeps the world working as-is? They should want to keep us up with the latest AI deterrents.
I always wonder how on earth these committees are formed. Seems like every time a committee is appointed for a task like this, there is always a few conflicts-of-interest in the pool. So, how can we appoint people and screen out serious conflicts in a timely manner? When we have a committee like this, we need people that are highly educated in their respective fields, and preferably with a background or at least passing familiarity with the technical concepts involved. The pool is probably a lot smaller than we'd like to think -- and really, conflict or not, the people I'd like to see on this type of committees are people who have a track record of changing their stance when plausible and convincing evidence is presented.
C. Griffin
"Can I keep his head for a souvenir?" --Max from Sam 'N Max Freelance Police
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
Sources confirmed earlier this century Google is full of intolerant tyrannical cry babies. Stay tuned for our special report at 11.
Color me surprised. It's illegal to discriminate against people based on their political views in California so these signatories, if holding a managerial position could be putting the company at great risk of a lawsuit.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
This really affects the precious nazi snowflake crybaby-victim that is Nwaack, you can tell by the hysterical (political...) crybaby routine with all the exclamations, lol. Sad. Her life must suck (!!!!!)
You must be one of those constantly-offended, angry "Progressives" who thinks anyone who disagrees with them should be censored and/or beaten. Are you a member of Antifa, by chance?
IMHO, a bunch of Anti-Government (aka) Anarchist (aka) Traitor employees @ Google are working hard to stop Google from doing business for any governments!!!
IMHO, they need to be fired, instead of letting them keep attacking/fighting Google management in different ways, again & again!!!
Google is left, but not as left as this person is right.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
Now, now, don't forget to gas the LGBTQ folks, too. They're so convinced that they're all victims that they'd feel sad if they were left out.
Except they aren't. The vast majority are hoaxes perpetrated by mentally ill people.
Token Gestures. Token Gestures Everywhere.
By 2019, the Humans of Earth had almost entirely deformed the meaning of the word 'justice', wielding it like a weapon against anyone that disagreed with them, generally intending some measure of revenge (and often to insist on financial compensation). Often, this wasn't even personal revenge but revenge-by-proxy, insisting that others' suffering needed amelioration.
-Styopa
[citation needed]
fixed it for you
ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes liberty over everything else
of working for an ad company that really wants to support Communist China?
Preventing ad blocking in a browser.
Ensuing a search engine for Communist China won't find words and terms.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Why yes you define the Heritage Foundation as a hate group, because you hate everyone who disagrees with your idiotic opinion. You're a basic progressive bigot, repeating talking points without any critical thought.
Seems like if the signatories are that bent out of shape there should soon be 1,000 new jobs posted for Google. Though I shudder to think what would happen if they did all resign en masse. How would we get our much needed daily dose of advertising?
"Won't some think of the advertisers?!?"
Captcha: rebels
If you don't like what the company you work for do, just leave. This is what I did with my last employer (dubious ethics). I'm not the only one who did it. Many seniors and intermediate++ left the company. Now they only have a bunch of juniors and unmotivated employees and they have many problems with projects delivery (late, buggy, ...). Since then, I'm a freelancer and I'll never go back.
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
I'm feeling oppressed by your words.
Please stop.
citation needed that LGBTQ are victims of a coverup or that the crimes they are disproportionately a victim of are largely due to rightwing homophobes, like activists claim, and not the circumstances they themselves or other nonrightwingers put them under
Diversity of opinion, is not just allowing people who you agree with to participate. Just because you don't like a persons point of view, does not mean they will not have something valid to add to the conversation. In fairness it seems a disproportionally left make up - unless there is a fear that each slightly right person counts for 2-3 left people - I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Someone holds different views to me! Waaah! Waah! Nazi nazi nazi!!!
Such a convincing point of view. You're like a 21st century Socrates. Quick, write a book lest your insights be lost to future generations.
Actual quotes from Kay Coles James Twitter feed (did you know she was a female? I did not):
"We are committed to solutions that give Americans access to higher-quality health care. Letâ(TM)s lower premiums, increase choice, and protect people with pre-existing conditions."
"Women deserve opportunities and recognition for their valuable contributions, not rigid pay scales, inflexible jobs, & barriers to getting their foot in the door"
"Congress should pursue real reforms that put people in charge of their health care dollars & decisionsâ"while still protecting the vulnerable."
If caring about people and looking out for the well being of women is "so far right" then what the hell are you?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why are you posting copy paste spam from a known biased shit sit like snopes?
I shall reply with the same level of discourse you just applied:
â"-> I know you are but what am I? (Repeat ad nauseum to any response)
For your tiny brain: you said nothing, you added nothing, you made no point at all, you are a low grade moron who falsely believes himself to be clever based on no real world input, just made up in your own tiny brain.
Ok kids, look closely at the poster above. That is what happens when you attend a government school and accept everything they tell you.
Most of their employees aren't even Americans. Who gives a flying fuck what they think about what Google's role should be?
It takes a special kind of idiot to insist that your employer should shun profits. It's almost like they have no comprehension of where their livelihood comes from. I guess that's why those type of people are so keen on forcing us to pay more taxes for their unemployment benefits.
Perhaps we can see a sticking point on the definitions of the words involved, such as "justice". If there was true justice in the world Hillary would be behind bars, GWB would be behind bars, Obama would be behind bars, and in point of fact most politicians in the US would suddenly find themselves incarcerated, too. (And there might not be a living lawyer to be found anywhere despite some of them being fine people. "Justice" warriors would end 'em all and let whatever sort them out.)
{^_^}
Ironically it was you who first posted a ridiculous over-reaction.
I've noticed that conservatives do this a lot. Claim everyone else is overly offended, when in fact they are the ones posting angry rants.
Have you actually read the complaints people have? Do they sound anything like what you posted? Those are rhetorical questions.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Heterosexual relations, and marriage, are necessary for population growth. Homosexual relations are not.
Again, stupid argument from those who are bigotry. I will give you a very simple counter argument to your stupid reasoning. So what you said implies that a man who has low sperm count or a woman who can't have a baby (in many different reasons) can't be married even though the person has a "heterosexual relationship" but they CANNOT grow the population. Is that so?
Ironically it was you who first posted a ridiculous over-reaction.
So you're not smart enough to understand satire? My point was very obviously that they don't want dissenting views in their group, which is really hypocritical. Given my post is modded +5 insightful, everyone else seems to have understood this except for you.
I've noticed that conservatives do this a lot. Claim everyone else is overly offended, when in fact they are the ones posting angry rants.
I bet you notice a lot of things about conservatives but conveniently turn a blind eye to the stupid things liberals do. Is it nice and warm in your echo chamber? Oh, and by the way, I'm not a conservative. I consider myself an independent. Just yesterday I voted for both Republicans and Democrats in our local elections, so you go ahead and keep making incorrect assumptions and being a pompous jerk, and I'll keep laughing at you.
Have you actually read the complaints people have? Do they sound anything like what you posted? Those are rhetorical questions.
Well okay then. Since your SO sure that you're right about everything, I won't bother answering your rhetorical question.
This is called satire you simpleton. I don't expect someone like you to understand it, it was meant for those with critical thinking abilities.
Satire is mocking something that really happened. You just made a strawman so you could have a rant.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"it has eight members including economists, philosophers, policymakers, and technologists"
First, ethics is the expertise of ethicists, no other. An economist, policymaker or technologist knows as much about ethics as a philosopher knows about economics, policy or tech. Second, out of only eigth members one is a civic engineer (gibbens) and another a lawyer (james). Eh?
Really? I'm the one who made the strawman? The accusations of the people who signed this letter are so overblown that it's practically clickbait.
You DO know that Google is a for-profit corporation and not a student's YouTube channel, right?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Got any sources to back that up?
Seriously asking. Part of the reason for judicial system in America today was to get away from the corruption and arbitrariness of the British Colonial court system. But as soon as America was America, cliques in each state started doing exactly that. Justice was more often than not political rather than legal, with legal arguments only winning on merit if both the judge and jury were impartial, which more often than not they weren't. Even today, every time I have been called for jury duty it has been more about selecting the jurors most likely to side with the prosecution or defense than about finding a bloc of impartial jurors who will actually debate and ensure justice is done.
The Hetero-Marriage group were *ALSO* against having marriage moved from being a government legal construct to being a RELIGIOUS construction, while making legal Marriage simply a set of benefits atop a recodified Civil Union, so all persons, or groups of persons wishing to engage in a Civil Union could.
If America is truly a secular country, that is the step that should have been, and still should be, taken in order to solve this problem once and for all. Marriage in a legal sense is a combination of tax breaks and legal streamlining of disparate laws that could use as easily be consolidated into a new form of familial-benefit corporation with parental guardians assigned to board positions and made responsible for the activities of their corporation and employees (read: children.)) This is a digression, but every current aspect of marriage could be better handled under a different framework given a review and consolidation of the existing rules.
On the religious side of it, the social contract overlaps some(cheating, conduct in public, etc.), while the root of it, the unification of two people, souls, etc is entirely at the discretion of the religious organization as to what is acceptable. America's system was a pandering to its initial pro-Christian groups, most of which came here because they were persecuted for being too radical or anti-establishmentarian for the existing religious regimes. However, that ignores Native American marriage practices, and even American history with polygamy (mostly Mormons although lots of other communities practice polygamy outside of common knowledge or public scrutiny.
The real question we need to ask today is: 'Is America about freedom to live your life however you want, so long as it doesn't physically harm another?', ', so long as it doesn't mentally harm another?', or 'Is America about freedom to life your life so long as it follows my interpretation/belief of the Christian God's desire for this world?' If it is the latter, well, I hope you will congregate with your fellow likeminded brethren and create a community for yourself where you can live how you want while not interfering with the lives of the rest of us.
Furthermore, most of the people I talked to against SSM also didn't believe that SSM couples deserved the same tax benefits or other legal benefits that hetero married couples recieved. Really, if you go and look at it, it is not far from views one might have about the ethnic makeup of another person either, and their predispositions against them... Am I calling someone a bigot for their views? That is a matter left to the reader.