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
"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.
The ethics of only hearing approved viewpoints and opinions.
How very fascistic of Goolag.
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?
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
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.)
{^_^}
What's anti-gay and anti-science about the Heritage Foundation?
seriously?
Well here:s a bunch of mealy-mouthed JAQing off about global warming:
https://www.heritage.org/envir...
they're too cowardly to actually state their position insted they merely approach it from every angle but casting doubt, raising issues, obscuring the point and so on. Climate change might be up for debate but not by a bunch of jaqoffs who have an axe to grind.
but it at no point demonises or targets people based on their sexuality or gender
Ye they're too cowardly to actually commit in writing. Nonetheless they're advocating that places should be allowed to force this dude to use women's bathrooms:
https://i.upworthy.com/nugget/...
If those laws are allowed then any dude can walk into a womens bathroom and then claim he was born female and he's legally required to. I can't think for the life of me why they'd do that unless they hate transgender eople so much that it's blinded them to reality.
Oh and some anti gay:
https://www.heritage.org/marri...
yep start off by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. But it's more mealy mouthed insinuation and implication to grind their axe about zomg teh geys!111one
They do disagree with the legislation but do so by raising a large number of concerns about its implications.
Precisely. They have a regressive anti-seience, anti-gay agenda. They never state it but exist in a continual state of jaqing off, raising "concerns" and so on which all point one way.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well fucking forgive me for assuming the bloke that looked like a bloke that you called a dude was actually a fucking bloke.
That, my man is the entire point. And yet you STILL don't seem to be able to grasp it.
1. That bloke was born female.
2. Laws about birth gender and bathrooms will force that man into the women's bathrooms
3. some people want to prevent those laws from being passed
4. The heritage fonudation wants to block that prevention.
the conclusion is that the Heritage foundation wants that man in women's bathrooms.
It doesn't matter what they claim to want, what they say they actually want is for that man to go in women't bathrooms.
You failing miserably to understand the implications for people that do have inane superstitious beliefs makes you a fuckwit, and lacking any empathy for them makes you a cunt.
oooh won't someone PLEASE think of the poor oppressors.
Nah fuck 'em. Your freedom ends where I start. I deeply understand the point of view where people feel they have the right to oppress others but I also feel those people deserve to be in the hell that most of them believe in for it.
You've shown no fucking evidence at all.
I pointed out several place. You jamming your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalala" is not the same as me not showing anything, no matter how loudly you sing.
You're pointing fingers and declaring they should be allowed no voice because they dare to challenge your religion
Oh I see now you're entering the realm of "just making shit up".
They have the right to whine about how gay people are opressing them by their very existence. They don't have the right to do anything about it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No, you did not.
You: [fingers in ears] lalalalalala
No.
Yes.
That's you reading between the lines
No that's me taking what someone has said and working out what would actually happen when those "suggestions" reach the real world, something you're apparently not prepared to do.
Fuck it, I'm stopping reading. Why do I always end up having to stop reading your responses?
Because you're a bigoted fuckwit who can't deal with the truth.
SJW n. One who posts facts.