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."

3 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. "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
  3. 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.