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."

14 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. So misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:So misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does this person also oppose special treatment for heterosexual people? (e.g. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman.)

    2. Re:So misleading by EndlessNameless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Care to explain why its ridiculous while two chicks marrying each other is not?

      I'm not the original AC, but this is easy enough to answer that I'll step in.

      Marriage is a legal agreement, and it requires legal consent. Legal consent generally requires an adult of sound mind.

      Thus, an equitable society will allow marriage between a man and a woman, two women, or two men. Marriage of children, animals, and objects is not sensible because none of them can provide legal consent.

      So, if you're looking for a clear line---here it is. On the other hand, if you're just trying to justify your bigotry... don't bother. No justification will make it less repulsive.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    3. Re:So misleading by Shaitan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hopefully so, that would be a moderate position. Ideally there would be no left or right extremes represented but only moderates. TFS seems to advocate for all one extreme, Google seems to have gone for a blend of left and left center.

    4. Re:So misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No, we just need to apply the exiting laws equally. The issue is that activist groups push for legislation that makes them special. The feedback loop of those activist groups and their activism is that other groups then feel marginalized by the special treatment. The entire alphabet movement does nothing but agitate people in the name of equality. It tries to make one group more special than anyone else. It consists of people screaming "hey, I'm different and that makes me special". It also spurns mental illness in that people feel like they need to become part of that group in some way to also be special because that's the group getting all the attention. We suddenly have parents that want their children to be genderless so that they can be part of the in crowd at dinner parties.

      We just need to treat people as people and stop carving out special groups with special rights. It does nothing but divide.

    5. Re:So misleading by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Still better that ethicsvertising. Where bullshit corporations pretend to have ethics by creating ethics councils, that in the spirit of George Orwell and 1984 style are entirely stacked with people with no ethics.

      I mean though Google so fucking cheap on the ethicsvertising, I mean only four meetings a year, and only eight people. Oh how the greater than though moralists have fallen, all that bullshit feels good research into public benefit projects, that never seems to achieve anything beyond advertising.

      If you do not drop Gmail and block Gmail addresses, you are part of the problem, you are keeping corrupt companies like Google going. All sweetness and kisses on the outside but a bandoleer of daggers strapped to their back, all ready to go all stabby as soon as you back is turned.

      Does Trump like Google, absolute not, Trump ain't that stupid and he knows full well Google baked their search engine to be HUGELY biased against him. Hence the public announcement, dropped Google right in it on purpose, paid them back, Trump might as well have said, "Google see, a slimey behind the scenes scummy war monger but it public the lie all about SJWs and the extra rights of freaks because it is good advertising".

      Was it fair for Donald to drop Google in it like that, absolutely, I don't think much of him but I respect him at least for doing that, well done, Don.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:So misleading by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      There are civil union contracts available out there for such folks....why not use them, same benefit, right?

      To me, "marriage" is a religious thing...and the govt. really doesn't need to be in that business. They should leave the marriage part to churches....and for legal contracts, everyone should use civil contracts....

      Seems like that should clear it up....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:So misleading by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To me, "marriage" is a religious thing...and the govt. really doesn't need to be in that business.

      Yes, let's ignore how reality is right now and aim for lofty goals while conveniently continuing to deny rights to eople in the mean time.

      If the government recognises marriages (it does) then it should recognise them for gay coules as well.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. So, only lefties then? by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:So, only lefties then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you dispute cultural marxism at this point, your head is in your sand. You have picked up on exactly what identity politics is all about: only giving basic human rights to leftists and no one else. Social credit score is the same idea, but less underhanded.

  3. Tolerance for me, but not for thee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ethics of only hearing approved viewpoints and opinions.

    How very fascistic of Goolag.

  4. So Google has 1000s of alt-leftists by guruevi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:Nwaack is already crying like a hysterical bitc by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. "Justice" by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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