Slashdot Mirror
Google Cancels AI Ethics Board In Response To Outcry (vox.com)
After facing criticism for including two controversial members in its AI ethics board, Google told Vox that it's pulling the plug on the board altogether. "The inclusion of drone company CEO Dyan Gibbens reopened old divisions in the company over the use of the company's AI for military applications," reports Vox. But it's Heritage Foundation president Kay Coles James who proved most controversial due to her company's hard line stance on immigration and LGBTQ rights. Thousands of Google employees signed a petition earlier this week calling for her removal. From the report: The board survived for barely more than one week. Founded to guide "responsible development of AI" at Google, it would have had eight members and met four times over the course of 2019 to consider concerns about Google's AI program. Those concerns include how AI can enable authoritarian states, how AI algorithms produce disparate outcomes, whether to work on military applications of AI, and more. But it ran into problems from the start.
Board member Alessandro Acquisti resigned. Another member, Joanna Bryson, defending her decision not to resign, claimed of James, "Believe it or not, I know worse about one of the other people." Other board members found themselves swamped with demands that they justify their decision to remain on the board. The panel was supposed to add outside perspectives to ongoing AI ethics work by Google engineers, all of which will continue. Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders. Here is Google's statement on the matter: "It's become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can't function as we wanted. So we're ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We'll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics."
Board member Alessandro Acquisti resigned. Another member, Joanna Bryson, defending her decision not to resign, claimed of James, "Believe it or not, I know worse about one of the other people." Other board members found themselves swamped with demands that they justify their decision to remain on the board. The panel was supposed to add outside perspectives to ongoing AI ethics work by Google engineers, all of which will continue. Hopefully, the cancellation of the board doesn't represent a retreat from Google's AI ethics work, but a chance to consider how to more constructively engage outside stakeholders. Here is Google's statement on the matter: "It's become clear that in the current environment, ATEAC can't function as we wanted. So we're ending the council and going back to the drawing board. We'll continue to be responsible in our work on the important issues that AI raises, and will find different ways of getting outside opinions on these topics."
Yet another large group folds just because some tiny mob of people are angry.
People should really start taking up the examples of Virginian Democrats and stand fast - if Democrats can hold onto power after raping women and wearing a Klan hood, then it sure seems like Google should be able to have a panel with whoever the hell they like and ignore the haters.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
why Google, etc might want to relocate to China or other countries........
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Making shrill demands to have everyone else follow your own narrow set of beliefs is not the same as ethics. Diversity of opinion is the very thing these employees are protesting against, even if they might not know it themselves.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Engineers with ethics? Will the wonders never cease?
No, actually a lack of ethics. Ethical individuals listen to others with diverse or opposite opinions, hear them out, and honestly weigh both side's arguments. It is unethical individuals that presume others are wrong and bar them from participating in the discussion. They are practicing the ethics of fascists, quite ironic.
In any case the goog staff are wrong. You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones. AI will happen, do they want to do it right or let someone else do it badly?
You are absolutely correct. Groups of people with different perspectives often make better decisions than groups of monoculture thought. However we live in an age where results do not matter, where signaling "good intentions" is more important. And again like the hyper partisan politicals they are only "their side" could possibly have "good intentions", thus their ideal of one party control is justified.
"You need a diversity of opinions, not a diversity of genders and skin tones." You need a diversity of both to achieve either.
A diversity of opinions is likely to give you a diversity of genders and skin tones and experiences.
And google's diversity of genders and skin tones is proving you don't necessarily get a diversity of opinions, we are seeing quite the ideological monoculture among Google's "diversity".
I don't think you've polled Google's employees with the granular depth required to say they all have a particular ideology other than by the fact that they work there, and on what they do. I've had jobs that were just jobs.
And you have never worked for google. I have for 5+ years.
2010 was free open and fun. Discussions across different ideas and ideologies. And everyone respected everyone else.
2018 at google is kind of twitter hate mob. You don't conform and "they" find out they will try to get you fired. Internal emails and lists to ban you from visit other offices to outright calls to fire you, or else.
It is completely insane.
Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
If someone is working to take away your rights, you should not just accept that as "diversity of opinion", you should fight hard to protect yourself and those like you.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Wouldn't you want differing views on an ethics board? I guess as long as they're not different from yours.
You didn't actually refute the study. Do you have a citation handy? All you did was a very clumsy attempt at the "guilt by association" fallacy. And you began with an "ad hominem" fallacy. It's shameful this passes as argument and gets modded up. It's rank tribalism, "my side is right". Believe all women, except when they accuse Democrats.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
if only they had assembled the board using some kind of unbiased, refined AI that would figure out the correct mix of different people everybody could agree on.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
We must stop letting the tribal factions in our country reject members of other tribes as unacceptable. An AI ethics board with full support from the left that can't convince the Heritage Foundation to come on board with its recommendation is no better than an AI ethics board from the religious right that hasn't considered non-Christian viewpoints.
The petitioners wanted Google to create a "bubble" that only had a certain pre-ordained point of view.
I work in the industry AND have strong positive moral ethics. They didn't ask me to serve on the board. Not sure why they picked a bunch of CEOs ... that's a group of people that are more likely to be sociopaths than anybody!
'Unsuitable.'
We need to explore that point further.
I thought Ami was perfectly clear, in this context 'Unsuitable' means do not fully align with his SJW values and/or not sufficiently woke.
"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. "
It originates with philosopher Karl Popper, and by now is well debunked as a fallacy, because it is obviously broken logic.
"In order to preserve freedom"
Funny how SJWs as yourself and openly Communists such as this person always come up with big banner words (such as "In the name of humanity" which actually have nothing to do with the problem they are so eager to offer a totalitarian "solution".
we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things.
Funny how totalitarian proponents such as yourself never clearly say their definition of "we" doesn't match the "we" any normal person would assume (but rather "only we, the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists") and how they try to obfuscate the true meaning of "certain things" (which sounds benign until it is revealed it means "anything the SJWs / communists / Trotskyists / Maoists disagree with, including your right to private property, safety, pursuit of happiness, and even life").
Here is a proper rendering of the tolerance vs intolerance balance in a tolerant and open society: "our tolerance should not tolerate physical violence (including attempted/incitement to physical violence)".
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
The entire point of panels is to have people with diverging views talk about a subject in a civil manner.
By eliminating people from a panel they disagree with, those whiners are tacitly admitting they can't refute the views or ideas of the people they disagree with.
What you wind up is a panel full of agreement, which is worthless.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
"Nah, this is the paradox of tolerance. In order to preserve freedom, we can't tolerate people who are intolerant of certain things."
Exactly! We can't tolerate people who are intolerant of free speech.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
Exactly, you can't have an ethics council made up of people whose job it is to promote unethical policies. That with be an unethics council.
So what do you think is going to happen? That the kook from the Heritage Foundation is going to convince this ethics panel to make hunter-killer drones to eliminate gay people or people of differing skin pigmentation or something?
Backed by the manufacturer of the drones?
This might come as a hard pill to swallow, but if you must prevent your ideas being exposed to other people's ideas, your ideas are fatally weak.
I know that in a long career, I have taken much insight from people who have very different politics than mine, and perhaps I have given them insight as well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
They absolutely did not refute those views. They shut down all discussions before views on AI ethics were ever discussed.
You don't even know what their views were, because they literally were not allowed to speak them. You might have found that the person you hate would have had the same views as you on the dangers or benefits of AI. We'll never know because your arbitrary purity test and extremism once again damaged civil society through censorship and deplatforming.
You are breathtakingly stupid, and still dishonest as always.
Consider LGBTQ rights. Off the top my head, there's no gay marriage in China (1 billion people), India (1 billion people), Islam (1.5 billion people) or Catholicism (1 billion people). There's not likely to be much overlap in those groups, so right there is 4.5 billion people, more than half the world's population, for whom a statement like "a man cannot marry another man" is uncontroversial and obvious.
Maybe the ethics of the Bay area aren't exactly universal, and they could be more tolerant of diverse opinions? Particularly when those diverse opinions represent the majority of the world?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.