Slashdot Mirror


Google Quietly Disbanded Another AI Review Board Following Disagreements (wsj.com)

Google is disbanding a panel in London to review its artificial-intelligence work in health care, WSJ reported Monday, as disagreements about its effectiveness dogged one of the tech industry's highest-profile efforts to govern itself. From a report: The Alphabet unit is struggling with how best to set guidelines for its sometimes-sensitive work in AI -- the ability for computers to replicate tasks that only humans could do in the past. It also highlights the challenges Silicon Valley faces in setting up self-governance systems as governments around the world scrutinize issues ranging from privacy and consent to the growing influence of social media and screen addiction among children. AI has recently become a target in that stepped-up push for oversight as some sensitive decision-making -- including employee recruitment, health-care diagnoses and law-enforcement profiling -- is increasingly being outsourced to algorithms. The European Commission is proposing a set of AI ethical guidelines and researchers have urged companies to adopt similar rules. But industry efforts to conduct such oversight in-house have been mixed. Further reading: Google Cancels AI Ethics Board In Response To Outcry.

11 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Why would we trust them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But industry efforts to conduct such oversight in-house have been mixed.

    Sorry, but why would we trust multi-billion dollar companies to self regulate, when their clear goal is maximizing profits and getting as much of your data as possible.

    I wouldn't trust any company to self regulate, let alone anything like Google or Facebook who have demonstrated time and time again they don't care about your privacy.

    We need to be regulating them, not just trusting they'll do the right thing ... because we know they won't.

  2. Re:Why would you trust the men with guns? by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is a little duplicitous in its dealings. Its real customers, the advertisers know exactly what they're getting and what the terms are, but the people having their data sucked up aren't always told what's happening and are often quite horrified when they find out what companies like Google, Facebook, etc. have collected about them.

    I don't particularly trust either group. I think the best approach is to enshrine certain guarantees of privacy into the constitution or law and let the men with gavels smack them around for non-compliance.

  3. Way too simplistic by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry, but why would we trust multi-billion dollar companies to self regulate

    Because if they do not they die, or are punished rather badly.

    their clear goal is maximizing profits

    Here's the problem with being afraid of that - you have no idea what that actually means. In fact, even GOOGLE does not know what that really means.

    No-one knows what actions would truly "maximize profits". Certainly not the people outside the company's top execs who have no inkling of the roadmap for the company, and very little ability to understand what will even be possible in five years or longer. But for those inside the company, even then actions are just an educated guess.

    So companies may be trying to "maximize profits" but since there is no one sure way to do so, instead what they are really doing is trying to follow a mission statement to move a company forward toward one or more end goals. Often those goals can have some altruistic purpose to help people, alongside the goal to help the company.

    getting as much of your data as possible.

    Some but not all, Google for sure this is indeed true of.

    We need to be regulating them

    Oh so you'd like the citation much worse? You'd like all other companies to end up like pharmaceutical companies, the most heavily regulated industry there is?

    The problem with using regulation as the only tool to shape company actions is that if a company is large enough it can easily control the regulations that supposedly control them. Then not only can they do what they like without worry about government, but they use regulations as a tool to ensure competitors cannot function well, thereby removing the only real force that actually changes company behavior - market pressure. If you can't have some small company come up and compete against you, a company will do what it likes forever - the more regulation the better.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Way too simplistic by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 737 Max 8 disaster should be the final nail in the coffin of the idiotic idea of self-regulation. Boeing didn't stop themselves from making relatively basic mistakes even though they knew it could cost them dearly, which it did. How could anyone continue to defend self-regulation after this?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Way too simplistic by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      I'm with you that government regulation needs to be an avenue of last resort because of how generally terrible it ends up being in practice. My go-to example is all the Parkland kids making noise about wanting gun control to feel safe, but the government regulation they got was a mandate of clear backpacks in their school. More directly related, my local municipality makes it very difficult to get permits to run cables for ISPs...little startups like Verizon would have had to pay about half a million dollars to get a *hearing* about whether they could be candidates to get the permits.

      I very much understand the concern about adding regulations by groups like that...it's begging for the worst possible implementation.

      The problem is that I don't see anything better. I'm a fan of the free market wherever it can work, but there comes a point where the market is too distorted to function correctly. Can we really persuade Google to act more responsibly using only free market forces at this point? Will companies be willing to migrate from G-Suite to Office365 or some on-prem solution based solely on principle? Will enough people move from Gmail to ProtonMail or similar? Will web developers be willing to eschew AMP and Fonts and Analytics and all their other things? Would advertisers be willing to freeze their Google AdWords campaigns? Even if somehow we got 30% of people to do all of this, would it be possible for Google to really see that it's being done because the court of public opinion has ruled them irresponsible, and will they change their ways accordingly?

      Probably not; it would require far too many people to launch a coordinated effort while also directly telling Google what they're doing wrong, and Google would have to believe their bottom line would yield a net increase as a result of the changes; even a 30% difference might be more survivable than making their data collection truly opt-in on a mass scale.

      This leaves us with government regulation, but there are still too many factions with conflicting goals. Some have issues solely with the AI ethics boards. Others are principally opposed to AI development at all. Still others have issues with their willingness to use their algorithms to limit free speech, and others still are opposed to their data mining. Meanwhile, advertisers would probably be happy with even more insight into particular user demographics, and some desire outright illegal options for ad targeting.

      Put it all together and you've got a company that simply can't please everyone at once, and to invite regulation is to ask the government to pick sides on each of these issues, and many more, and then codify them into law. It sounds good, until you get laws that start to look like the DMCA, which has kept ripping DVDs illegal for decades in the process of trying to address more legitimate problems of copyright enforcement during the emerging years of the commercial internet.

      Finally, even if we were to attempt government regulation anyway, we'd still be dealing with the fox-guarding-the-henhouse problem we already see with ISPs and Ajit Pai running the FCC. Even if we miraculously had a regulatory body headed by someone who understands tech well enough to be effective while also not being in Google/Amazon/Microsoft/Oracle's pockets, the next guy almost definitely will be.

      Which leaves us with...what option exactly? For real, I'm open to suggestions. Self-regulating gives us these self-appointed governing bodies that can't seem to outlast a Google Beta project. Government oversight over companies as large and powerful as Google and friends are too susceptible to bigger money diplomacy, and free market is demonstrably too difficult to make happen with the amount of coordination it would require. If you have any idea how to solve this problem, by all means, I'm open to it.

    3. Re:Way too simplistic by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That agency, the FAA, delegated some of its regulatory oversight tasks to Boeing. The GP's comment is insightful: it was considered critical to have independent oversight, so a government agency was set up. That agency decided to compromise on its oversight responsibility in favour of a small degree of self-regulation, and disasters occurred.

      Companies can (and do) set up advisory boards, but those are advisory only. Real regulation must be imposed by an independent body with legal power to do so.

  4. Re:Google's fraud hasn't been prosecuted. by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    To your first point, I would say that Google has been deceitful. I'm sure they've informed you of exactly what they do with the information collected through their services which you and others provide voluntarily. They've broken no laws so there's little the government can do. There's also the cynical take that governments don't mind companies amassing these large caches of data, so long as they let the government peek at it. It's like having a secret police that you don't need to maintain for yourself.

    The second point is what we already have. The sad reality is that a large segment of the population places a very low value on their privacy, and there are other segments that actively wish to erode privacy rights as long as it harms some other group which they detest.

    All I can say is that hopefully the next generation of founding fathers learn from the mistakes of history and enshrine better protections into their constitution and seek to build a nation that's willing to stand up for and defend those rights.

  5. Re:Why would you trust the men with guns? by Thaelon · · Score: 3

    And when the men with gavels fail, there's an amendment between the first and third that exists explicitly for turning a corrupt government off and back on whether it likes it or not.

    When. Not 'if'.

    --

    Question everything

  6. Expected behavior by rossz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what happens when a significant majority of your workforce does not wish to hear any opposing viewpoints and actively punish anyone who does not toe the party line. They create a self-imposed echo chamber so that "all is well" in their tiny little world.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  7. Re:You can't save people from their own stupidity. by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    I generally agree with your assessment, and my problem isn't people willingly turning over information to these companies. I don't use Facebook and I've been moving away from Google (which is getting easier given how much less useful their search has become over the years), but the problem is that these companies are able to collect a large amount of personal information about me even when I don't use them and give them my business.

    The only real problem I have with your argument is that the same could be said about free speech. There are quite a few people who think it shouldn't even exist and that the government should in fact clamp down on certain types of speech. I don't think that some people believing that a fundamental right shouldn't exist or be protected weakens the government's duty to uphold that right.

  8. Re: You can't save people from their own stupidity by astrofurter · · Score: 2

    "given how much less useful their search has become over the years"

    This is one good thing about Google's descent into overt evil: it seems to have destroyed the company's ability to make good products. Google Search results have been getting less and less useful, and have really gone downhill fast in recent years. Likewise the new Fischer Price UI for Gmail is craptastic. Maps is still awesome - so I eagerly await the next version that ruins it too.

    Google has always been a surveillance company, but they used to do a good job of pretending to be a product company. At one time the quality of their baitware was head & shoulders above competing, less-malicious software products.

    Google has always had contempt for its users - it's unavoidable when their whole business model is based on stalking, snooping, and selling the details of people's private lives to repressive governments. When Google was still growing, they paid lip service to caring about their users. Now that Google has vast monopoly power, this lip service is no longer necessary. Big Brother Google is part of the totalitarian security state and you, the user, are nothing but a deplorable prole.

    Google: Be Evil.

    Fuck you, plebs, that's why!