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."
I call it a hate group.
Apples and oranges.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No, he opposes special laws just for LGBTQ people.
Here's what I don't understand about your stance: you want to deny rights to gay people (you're advocating FOR the heritage foundation here), by prventing them from marrying and getting the same legal protections and rights as straight people.
But yet you swear blind that that isn't anything against gay people.
You clearly think gay people deerve fewer rights because you are indirecly (but not very indirectly) advocating to use the force of law to deny those rights. But your you know that's wrong because you wish to hide those actions by claiming the opposite.
Why?
If you think it's OK, the come out and say it and stop pretending otherwise. if you think it's not OK, the nstop advocating for it.
Either way your position makes no sense.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
they're too cowardly to actually state their position
So you assume it. Project much?
Ye they're too cowardly to actually commit in writing
That's an interesting way of telling me that you have no evidence.
Nonetheless they're advocating that places should be allowed to force this dude to use women's bathrooms
That flat out contradicts the publication on their website that I linked. Perhaps you'd like to show some fucking evidence, because right now you're talking a lot of shit and backing it up with nothing.
yep start off by defining marriage as between a man and a woman
You mean the definition that's been around for centuries? Perhaps gay people should've done the sensible fucking thing and fought to remove any legal recognition of marriage, at which point they can marry who or whatever the fuck they want.
it's more mealy mouthed insinuation and implication to grind their axe about zomg teh geys!111one
What, like this sentence: "Redefining marriage marginalizes those with traditional views and leads to the erosion of religious liberty."
I think that sentence is entirely correct. You may think.. sorry, it's clear that you don't think. People may think that the marginalisation of traditional views and erosion of religious liberties is less important than letting same sex couples marry but I see no harm in expecting them to make that a conscious decision.
They have a regressive anti-seience, anti-gay agenda. They never state it but
..that doesn't stop you bleating on about it as though it's true. Sorry but if they're so anti-gay and anti-seience and anti-science then it should have been easy for you to reference this, and you've failed miserably.
jaqing
Still, you've been able to invent a new word. Congratulations, have a gold star.